What "safety" issues do we see with US production. Almost nothing. And the issue with storage of spent fuel is basically one of Democrats not keeping the government's promises. There is a good solution that they rejected. These plants need to remain open, and new nuclear needs to be purchased.
1
In a related article on 6/1/16:
Matt Bennett, founder of the centrist think tank Third Way, suggested that the government could maintain closed plants so they might be restarted when market conditions warrant. Power purchasing agreements might also be struck with the Defense Department or other federal agencies to help prop up the industry.
So the subsidies since it's inception and placing US citizens & the next 3000 generations responsible for their waste still isn't enough.
It's way past time to STOP the nuke con job!
UCS had it pegged in 2011
NUCLEAR POWER:
Still Not Viable without Subsidies
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclea...
Matt Bennett, founder of the centrist think tank Third Way, suggested that the government could maintain closed plants so they might be restarted when market conditions warrant. Power purchasing agreements might also be struck with the Defense Department or other federal agencies to help prop up the industry.
So the subsidies since it's inception and placing US citizens & the next 3000 generations responsible for their waste still isn't enough.
It's way past time to STOP the nuke con job!
UCS had it pegged in 2011
NUCLEAR POWER:
Still Not Viable without Subsidies
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclea...
3
My first engineering boss in the early 1960s was one of Admiral Rickover's captains who was responsible for development of the Sea Wolf reactor for nuclear submarines. I also ran an Isotope laboratory based on my graduate work in nuclear engineering at MIT.
We lost a half century of research and development on the production of safe, clean, effective and efficient nuclear power due to unfounded fear driving radical opposition. The mounting costs to our planet and humanity due to the rampant use of fossil fuels will be a plague for centuries. Global heating due to disruption and destruction of specific aspects of our atmosphere is irreversible. The grand hope for thermonuclear fusion using sea water has been twenty-five years in the future since the i940 and will probably remain so for centuries. The mix of renewable technologies can only produce a fraction of the world's needs and have their own nasty side effects.
Our only hope is nuclear fission in reactors so lets get on with it!
We lost a half century of research and development on the production of safe, clean, effective and efficient nuclear power due to unfounded fear driving radical opposition. The mounting costs to our planet and humanity due to the rampant use of fossil fuels will be a plague for centuries. Global heating due to disruption and destruction of specific aspects of our atmosphere is irreversible. The grand hope for thermonuclear fusion using sea water has been twenty-five years in the future since the i940 and will probably remain so for centuries. The mix of renewable technologies can only produce a fraction of the world's needs and have their own nasty side effects.
Our only hope is nuclear fission in reactors so lets get on with it!
5
This article misuses the definition of environmentalist,when it states that "nuclear energy is supported by some environmentalists".Our bioshpere nurtures growth and development of life......defending preservation of the biosphere which protects all of life, is what environmentalism represents............nuclear reactors were designed to make fuel for atomic bombs ,the very antithesis of preserving life.The nearly 500 nuclear power plants now operating or planned are all potential catastrophic environmental disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima(and many other concealed accidents) where,a million or more people were killed or exposed to deadly radiation which has and will continue to cause cancer and other crippling illnesses to many generations of the "survivors". The hundreds of thousands of tons radioactive waste sit in deteriorating "temporary"storage with no means of disposal Thousands of tons of weapons grade plutonium and are being continuosly produced(Japan currently holds 47 tons for the US) Nuclear use has a massive "hidden" CO2 footprint from mining,transporting and processing uranium,building of massive nuclear concrete infrastructures, metal mining and processing for the reactor "plumbing".....and massive waste and irridiation of water for cooling.
Bill Gates("ive got a ton of money invested in nuclear") the nuclear military industrial complex(and the car industry)..... WAKE UP the nuclear suns light and wind are FREE and CLEAN !!!!!!! NO MORE TOXIC INVESTMENT
Bill Gates("ive got a ton of money invested in nuclear") the nuclear military industrial complex(and the car industry)..... WAKE UP the nuclear suns light and wind are FREE and CLEAN !!!!!!! NO MORE TOXIC INVESTMENT
5
Well Gee neither Solar or Wind are "free". You have to buy the facilities, maintain them and replace them. They also require a very expensive change to the grid about 2T of investment that can't happen quickly. The cooling water is not irritated either. This is typical ignorant people make the decisions.
this is a misguided and biased comment.
The commentor says; "Nuclear use has a massive "hidden" CO2 footprint from mining,transporting and processing uranium,building of massive nuclear concrete infrastructures, metal mining and processing for the reactor "plumbing".....and massive waste and irridiation of water for cooling." Based on this are we to assume wind towers, solar energy cells, etrc. do not require any of these? Has this person visited a wind farm and seen the roads required to install and frequently service wind turbines? Has he watched the truckloads of concrete and steel being placed to provide a foundation for wind turbines? Has he any proof that cooling water is in his terms "irridiation of water for cooling."?
Yes, there are potential problems (which may occur) and the alternatives of using natural gas, while better than coal, produces harmful pollution which we have learned to live with. It is the fear of the unknown, while not recognizing the damage done by existing sources of power the person writing the comment is in error. Yes, the sun and wind are free but getting electricity from them is NOT.
The commentor says; "Nuclear use has a massive "hidden" CO2 footprint from mining,transporting and processing uranium,building of massive nuclear concrete infrastructures, metal mining and processing for the reactor "plumbing".....and massive waste and irridiation of water for cooling." Based on this are we to assume wind towers, solar energy cells, etrc. do not require any of these? Has this person visited a wind farm and seen the roads required to install and frequently service wind turbines? Has he watched the truckloads of concrete and steel being placed to provide a foundation for wind turbines? Has he any proof that cooling water is in his terms "irridiation of water for cooling."?
Yes, there are potential problems (which may occur) and the alternatives of using natural gas, while better than coal, produces harmful pollution which we have learned to live with. It is the fear of the unknown, while not recognizing the damage done by existing sources of power the person writing the comment is in error. Yes, the sun and wind are free but getting electricity from them is NOT.
2
As someone who cares about clean air and carbon free electricity and knows that nuclear provides 60% of the US clean electricity, it is insane to shutdown perfectly working and licensed nuclear plants prematurely amidst a climate crisis. And to use the word "old age" for a 30 year old nuclear reactor that is designed to last over 80 years and has most of its components renewed by the time they reach 40 years, is just wrong. Compare that to the 20 year lifespan of solar panels and wind turbines. By the criteria used in this article, our wind fleet is much further to aging that nuclear turbines given that most have passed their 10 year lifespan. And once you begin to understand just how much energy nuclear the same nuclear plant produces today than it did 10 or 20 years ago is astonishing. That is due to improvements in capacity factors and uprates. Compare that to solar panels that produce less and less electricity each year as they age. And of course, dispatchability, the most valuable attribute of any form of electricity generation. Few people understand that electricity that is generated when people don't need it is essentially useless. Batteries are horrible for the environment, for our health and incredibly expensive, hence the reason why in places like Germany electricity goes to negative prices when there is excess solar and wind. They have to pay others to consume it or throw it away in the form of heat.
2
It's about time that people start recognizing that current-generation nuclear plants are safer than safe. It's only the ideology of enviro-nuts that has prevented us from taking advantage of this energy source. Solar and wind are never going to be able to do what nuclear can do.
2
Good point but never is a long time and we could create a new grid to allow much more wind etc. The problem is the massive cost of doing so.
What a puff piece for nuclear power!
5
In line with many comments here, i agree the risks from changes to Earth's atmospheric greenhouse gases far outweigh the overstated hazards of nuclear power.
The article nicely illustrates how the economics of our energy choices fail us, since the damage caused by fossil fuel use, specifically global warming from the large increase in atmospheric CO2, is not reflected in the prices of fossil fuels.
There's an urgent need to remedy this by correcting this 'market failure' by allowing the price of fossil fuels to reflect the damage they are doing. This would create needed incentives for a shift of our energy systems away from the source of the global warming problem and towards low-carbon energy. It would also benefit nuclear. While some problems with nuclear are undeniable, it's reasonable to question how we could achieve the critical reduction of our use of fossil fuel power, while simultaneously shutting down the largest source of near-zero-carbon electricity generation.
The key point is: combustion of fossil fuels for power has to end, and soon, if we are to avoid irreversible harm to our only planet. To do this, fossil fuel prices have to increase to discourage their use. This will require policy decisions, most effectively a carbon tax. Such a tax can be enacted without sacrificing economic growth if it is made revenue-neutral by rebating the revenue to households. The political will to do this will have to come from citizens. www.citizensclimatelobby.org
The article nicely illustrates how the economics of our energy choices fail us, since the damage caused by fossil fuel use, specifically global warming from the large increase in atmospheric CO2, is not reflected in the prices of fossil fuels.
There's an urgent need to remedy this by correcting this 'market failure' by allowing the price of fossil fuels to reflect the damage they are doing. This would create needed incentives for a shift of our energy systems away from the source of the global warming problem and towards low-carbon energy. It would also benefit nuclear. While some problems with nuclear are undeniable, it's reasonable to question how we could achieve the critical reduction of our use of fossil fuel power, while simultaneously shutting down the largest source of near-zero-carbon electricity generation.
The key point is: combustion of fossil fuels for power has to end, and soon, if we are to avoid irreversible harm to our only planet. To do this, fossil fuel prices have to increase to discourage their use. This will require policy decisions, most effectively a carbon tax. Such a tax can be enacted without sacrificing economic growth if it is made revenue-neutral by rebating the revenue to households. The political will to do this will have to come from citizens. www.citizensclimatelobby.org
5
This is an amazing article. The author claims that those who have reputed this relatively clean American energy source are actually willing to listen to science and economics. Nuclear plants are much simpler than in the 1960s, although still complex. If the U.S. acts now, before all of our skilled nuclear scientists retire, it's possible to create a version of the 'moon shot' mentality around domestic energy.
The difficulties will from the American legal community and politicians, such as Harry Reid - oh, yes, thank G-d, he's retiring.
The difficulties will from the American legal community and politicians, such as Harry Reid - oh, yes, thank G-d, he's retiring.
2
NPR has a different view: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473379564/unable-to-compete-on-price-nucle... Is your placement Mrs Clinton's position? Certainly, the beneficiary of Price-Anderson & US Dept. of Energy largesse is not carbon free. Electricite de France website calls it low carbon. See http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2736691/false_solution_nu... & http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2736691/false_solution_nu... & http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/whats-more-nuclear-power-not-source-....
1
NPR having an objection is irrelevant, unless they also have an alternative solution. And it had better not be something impractical, such as wind or solar, which are never going to power cars, homes, and other power-intensive applications.
Honestly what safety concerns? All energy production has pollution and disastrous accidents, was Fukishima really worse than the countless Oil spills large and small, the fracking disaster and heaps of Coal fly ash everywhere?
Statistically Nuclear power has been the safest source of energy production and unlike renewables it actually produces meaningful amounts of energy. Just a reminder that Solar in the US produces about 0.7% of our electricity and Wind 4.5% practically meaningless compared to the funds and accolades heaped on both of those technologies.
As for waste, Nuclear plants produce practically none, it's a small tiny amount which is highly radioactive. This so called waste can be used as fuel in other reactor cycles, the Canadian CANDU reactors are doing this now.
I don't think human civilization will last without coming to terms with the fear and hysteria surrounding this form of energy production. If we don't stop burning things for power then we will foul the atmosphere of the only known habitable planet.
Eventually we will probably have small modular reactors and other exotic fuel cycles like Molten Salt or Pebble Bed designs which are more efficient and reliable than the current fleet of light water designs. Or we will all live in some Mad Max Cormac McCarthy hellscape brought about by our collective fear and stupidity.
Statistically Nuclear power has been the safest source of energy production and unlike renewables it actually produces meaningful amounts of energy. Just a reminder that Solar in the US produces about 0.7% of our electricity and Wind 4.5% practically meaningless compared to the funds and accolades heaped on both of those technologies.
As for waste, Nuclear plants produce practically none, it's a small tiny amount which is highly radioactive. This so called waste can be used as fuel in other reactor cycles, the Canadian CANDU reactors are doing this now.
I don't think human civilization will last without coming to terms with the fear and hysteria surrounding this form of energy production. If we don't stop burning things for power then we will foul the atmosphere of the only known habitable planet.
Eventually we will probably have small modular reactors and other exotic fuel cycles like Molten Salt or Pebble Bed designs which are more efficient and reliable than the current fleet of light water designs. Or we will all live in some Mad Max Cormac McCarthy hellscape brought about by our collective fear and stupidity.
2
No one died or got sick as the result of Fukishima.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and used in breeder reactors, reducing the waste further. How many millions of tons of CO2 have been dumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel because of the foolish closing of the Shoreham plant by Luddite environmentalists and their scientifically illiterate lawyers? Time is well past to get modern nuclear designs on stream. Dispersed wind and solar will never replace the necessary large scale generation required in centrally located sites. Mario Cuomo was a good man, but he did us no favor when he enabled the zealots to close Shoreham. It's sister plant across the Sound in Connecticut has been safely producing clean power for over thirty years since Shoreham closed. What a waste- no pun intended.
3
Until there is a safe way to dispose of the "garbage" I will continue to oppose nuclear power generation. If the country wants to reduce carbon emissions then subsidize wind and solar.
6
Well since there is a safe way to dispose of it already I assume your objection is overcome. The French have such and have for a long time.
1
This piece neglects the cost of developing new plants, which typically run into the tens of billions. And it neglects to consider the considerable ecological disruptions caused by mining uranium and processing nuclear fuel.
2
Nuclear power plants utilizing Thorium reactors are the best answers to the problems faced in the past with Uranium reactors. Thorium is plentiful, cheap, and highly dependable and manageable. The fossil fuel energy lobby has a vested interest in keeping nuclear plants from returning, and that is the problem.
3
Thorium plants are much more expensive to set up than unranium. While they produce much less waste with a shorter half life, these plants produce radioactive byproducts that will take hundreds of years to degrade to safe levels of radiation.
Thorium is an improvement, but it is still dangerous and should not be a primary focus of our energy efforts.
Thorium is an improvement, but it is still dangerous and should not be a primary focus of our energy efforts.
2
No the problem is progressives not understanding science.
1
I like science and technology, but i think nuke plants are a stupid and shortsighted solution to our energy demands.
There is NO satisfactory method of safe disposal that will last as long as that waste remains deadly. Neither is there a repository to put the terrible stuff. No one wants it near them, for good reason!
Past nuclear processing facilities remain undecontaminated from as far back as WW2 and the cold war, and the funding to take on that horribly expensive and dangerous job is no where to be seen. Many are leaking radioactive poisons, contaminating watersheds, and soon our drinking water.
Local municipalities won't pay to decommission the aging power plant and getting the money out of congress for a dead plant is improbable.
The few years of electric power it provides, measured against the huge span of time that that beautiful site will remain deadly, even if the waste is moved( to render someplace else perennially deadly) makes nuclear power an absurd and shortsighted proposition.
There is NO satisfactory method of safe disposal that will last as long as that waste remains deadly. Neither is there a repository to put the terrible stuff. No one wants it near them, for good reason!
Past nuclear processing facilities remain undecontaminated from as far back as WW2 and the cold war, and the funding to take on that horribly expensive and dangerous job is no where to be seen. Many are leaking radioactive poisons, contaminating watersheds, and soon our drinking water.
Local municipalities won't pay to decommission the aging power plant and getting the money out of congress for a dead plant is improbable.
The few years of electric power it provides, measured against the huge span of time that that beautiful site will remain deadly, even if the waste is moved( to render someplace else perennially deadly) makes nuclear power an absurd and shortsighted proposition.
9
Sure there is it is call recycling.
1
If you have any skill at all in reading "between the lines" of what the press and governments tell us officially - it is blindingly clear that the whole response to the Fukushima disaster has been - public relations. Only.
All time tables for action - are put off; repeatedly. "We'll decontaminate everything" is followed by "well, not really." And don't even read the stories about corrupt clean-up companies - shuffling unprotected workers and dumping radioactive waste haphazardly - or using it as material for concrete...
The fact - they don't know what to DO about it. They have no technology that can cope with it - and not even any ideas. And neither does anyone else.
All time tables for action - are put off; repeatedly. "We'll decontaminate everything" is followed by "well, not really." And don't even read the stories about corrupt clean-up companies - shuffling unprotected workers and dumping radioactive waste haphazardly - or using it as material for concrete...
The fact - they don't know what to DO about it. They have no technology that can cope with it - and not even any ideas. And neither does anyone else.
4
Well Gee it is in Japan, there are things to be done but they cost a lot of money which nobody there wants to spend.
Nuclear power has not resolved finding a location for central nuclear waste, but every plant has expanded to cover waste. The problem is for all type of waste is the not in my neighborhood attitude.
We have not had an accident at a nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island 30 years ago. I assume operating a nuclear power plant for years improves our safety. I am not how many wind energy sites or square miles of solar power equals the power at coal or gas power station. Nuclear power plant can match coal or gas plants. Operating a nuclear plant produces no CO2. Building a nuclear plant produces CO2, so does a coal or gas plant.
We have not had an accident at a nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island 30 years ago. I assume operating a nuclear power plant for years improves our safety. I am not how many wind energy sites or square miles of solar power equals the power at coal or gas power station. Nuclear power plant can match coal or gas plants. Operating a nuclear plant produces no CO2. Building a nuclear plant produces CO2, so does a coal or gas plant.
1
We have a national nuclear waste facility built and ready to receive waste in Nevada. All it takes to open it for business is a president willing to follow the law.
1
And nobody was harmed by three mile island either.
1
I continue to see the assertion, unchallenged, that nuclear power is carbon-free. While nuclear power plants themselves emit no carbon dioxide, virtually everything other step in the power plant's and Uranium's life cycle is powered by fossil fuels. The uranium has to be mined, refined, stored, transported and once processed, stored as waste. The best peer reviewed sources list nuclear energy as having a total carbon footprint one third that of natural gas. While this is certainly better than natural gas, let's stop pretending nuclear energy is carbon free.
12
Moving coal from a coal mine to the power plant uses 100s or 1000s times more energy than moving uranium from an uranium mine to the power plant (source 1). Why? Uranium is between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 times more energy dense than coal (source 2).
Sources:
1) Petr Beckmann, The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (Boulder, CO: Golem Press, 1976), 86-87, 124
2) Energy density, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Introduction_to_energy_density
3) Robert Zubrin Ph.D, "Merchants of Despair", (2012), Chapter 11. Dr. Zubrin holds a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering
Sources:
1) Petr Beckmann, The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (Boulder, CO: Golem Press, 1976), 86-87, 124
2) Energy density, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Introduction_to_energy_density
3) Robert Zubrin Ph.D, "Merchants of Despair", (2012), Chapter 11. Dr. Zubrin holds a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering
1
Nothing is Carbon free, but over the full fuel cycle Nuclear and Wind produce the lowest amount of carbon emissions per watt generated. Only Wind produces a pittance of energy compared to Nuclear, i.e. no where near enough to challenge fossil fuels dominance.
2
Uh, no, not the "best peer-reviewed sources"...
According to the IPCC (the world's official global warming body), nuclear's total net emissions (accounting for all the parts of the process you mention) are a tiny fraction of fossil fuels', are several times lower than most renewable sources, and are roughly tied with wind as the lowest of all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
According to the IPCC (the world's official global warming body), nuclear's total net emissions (accounting for all the parts of the process you mention) are a tiny fraction of fossil fuels', are several times lower than most renewable sources, and are roughly tied with wind as the lowest of all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
2
Over their life cycles, all energy sources produce carbon dioxide and create radioactive and other toxic wastes. All are subsidized in some form. However, right now the policies we have in place (or don't have in place) will lead to an electrical grid mainly powered by natural gas from fracking with subsidized wind in areas controlled by ISOs, with nuclear maintaining a presence in more regulated markets. New York state is implementing a new policy called the REV (Reforming the Energy Vision) that it hopes will lead to more renewable energy being bought by making consumers responsible for their choice of generation source. Without some form of carbon tax, I am highly skeptical that goal will be obtained.
2
It is insane to discount the pages and pages of calls for the dismantling of all nuclear power plants. Germany has all but cleared them out. Why? Nuclear fission is dangerous and produces pollution that lasts, for all practical purposes, forever. It is not clean. It is not green. It is not affordable.
The price of nuclear power electricity does not include the costs of treating cancer patients or their suffering, or the use of potable water in short supply
for cooling, or the shutting down and dismantling old plants. This all costs billions. How can this be flipped off as a good power source? Enlightened countries must take the lead and end this reckless nuclear adventure.
The price of nuclear power electricity does not include the costs of treating cancer patients or their suffering, or the use of potable water in short supply
for cooling, or the shutting down and dismantling old plants. This all costs billions. How can this be flipped off as a good power source? Enlightened countries must take the lead and end this reckless nuclear adventure.
7
Nuclear power is replaced by Coal and Fracking gas, not by renewable sources. Nuclear power is the only source which can possibly challenge fossil fuels dominance.
IMO it's fear and hysteria of the unknown vs. the atmosphere of the only known habitable planet.
IMO it's fear and hysteria of the unknown vs. the atmosphere of the only known habitable planet.
2
The cost includes all those things (plant decommissioning and waste management). And there are no cancer patients. With fossil generation there are (huge numbers of them). In fact, the use of nuclear power has saved millions of lives, statistics show. I suppose that should count as a negative cost.
2
Clean energy? Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous; expensive to dispose of. Nuclear waste is piling up at power plants and insecure sites for years. There is no place to put it yet. Plutonium waste must be stored safely for 100,000 years. Whatever remote location is eventually used will require the transportaion of this dangerous materials through cities with risk of accident and inevitable spill. When plants malfunction, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima whole regions become uninhabitable for years. There is more to clean energy than carbon emissions.
5
The prestigious scientific journal, Science, has said humans are worst for Chernobyl's animals than the radiation (source 1 and source 2). Some of the Fukushima Exclusion Zone is now rehabilitated by humans (source 3). Some of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has been inhabilitated by humans for years. The Fukushima radiation from the nuclear accident may have little long term effect on the wildlife surrounding the nuclear reactors (source 4).
Sources:
1)
Oct. 5, 2015 , 12:15 PM
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/10/humans-are-worse-radiation-ch...
2)
5 October 2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34414914?ocid=socialflow_fac...
3)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34163297
4) Fukushima Radiation May Have Little Long-Term Effect On Wildlife
Web Date: March 6, 2014
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i10/Fukushima-Radiation-Little-Long-Term....
Sources:
1)
Oct. 5, 2015 , 12:15 PM
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/10/humans-are-worse-radiation-ch...
2)
5 October 2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34414914?ocid=socialflow_fac...
3)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34163297
4) Fukushima Radiation May Have Little Long-Term Effect On Wildlife
Web Date: March 6, 2014
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i10/Fukushima-Radiation-Little-Long-Term....
Through fear and misinformation, the Nuclear option has been unreasonably vilified and thus stymied. While I cannot support continued use of water cooled reactors, I certainly support either pebble bed or liquid salt reactors. Why we abandoned research on the former in the '60's I cannot fathom.
It is a given that intermittent sources of clean power, solar and wind, require backup power. Safe nuclear can do that if someone bothers to detail how a new generation of reactors is different from Fukushima, 3 Mile, and Chernobyl.
As for waste disposal: There are solutions if honesty prevails. To start with, a seven generation solution instead of a ludicrous 10,000 year solution is doable.
It is a given that intermittent sources of clean power, solar and wind, require backup power. Safe nuclear can do that if someone bothers to detail how a new generation of reactors is different from Fukushima, 3 Mile, and Chernobyl.
As for waste disposal: There are solutions if honesty prevails. To start with, a seven generation solution instead of a ludicrous 10,000 year solution is doable.
3
Nuclear power is an amazingly compact and deployable way to bring the benefits of reliable electricity to our society. It generates electricity from a sealed vessel heat source, providing gigawatt energy continuously for months and months and months on end. All costs and waste handling are included in the cost of the electricity supplied. The safety record is extremely good, to the point where it should definitely not be casually tossed into a headline - a twitchy habit that journalists would do well to shed.
The long-running smear campaign continues unabated of course, bought into by a media that both loves drama and avoids challenging prejudice. But the real-world numbers have convinced some of the more scientific and numerate environmentalists that nuclear power is absolutely needed in the tough fight to maintain humanity's technological benefits without unbalancing the biosphere by climate change.
The long-running smear campaign continues unabated of course, bought into by a media that both loves drama and avoids challenging prejudice. But the real-world numbers have convinced some of the more scientific and numerate environmentalists that nuclear power is absolutely needed in the tough fight to maintain humanity's technological benefits without unbalancing the biosphere by climate change.
14
Nuclear energy has the same problems oil and gas have where to put the waist and so there is no way it can be rationalized that's it's clean. Only a public official who is lobbied to think so would think it is. We pay our public officials to act in our interests.
1
High level waste from Light Water reactors can be used as fuel in other reactor types, the Canadian CANDU reactors do this today.
There is no correlation with fossil fuel waste which is trillions of times more plentiful and has no use once burned.
There is no correlation with fossil fuel waste which is trillions of times more plentiful and has no use once burned.
Here in California, we've seen what this does. In the state that might purport to care the most about the environment, we've seen our power sector emissions go up by 35% over just a few years with the closure of SONGs.
As usual, the real story here is not being told effectively-- the public does not know that the market is literally created to incentivize carbon emitting spot producers and the contracts for reliable and completely emission free plants will not give them a good price for all the value they create.
As a result, there are dramatic market externalities, and we are literally, and expensively, throwing away our country's greatest assets. 2/3rds of our emission free power, a huge number of good paying jobs, many of which in otherwise low income or smaller towns, and the huge infrastructural investment we all know is critical to our country.
It's true- these plants aren't that expensive to run. The cost of this always-on, completely emission-free power with literally the *lowest* carbon footprint of any electricity source, is staggeringly low. It is that the market does not allow for reasonable compensation for this benefit. So natural gas, at a low cost and given a premium price, wins the day in the market fraught with externality concerns. It does not win the day for our enironment, for our economy, for our cost of electricity. Hopefully we and our leaders can stand up to stop this inanity before it is too late.
As usual, the real story here is not being told effectively-- the public does not know that the market is literally created to incentivize carbon emitting spot producers and the contracts for reliable and completely emission free plants will not give them a good price for all the value they create.
As a result, there are dramatic market externalities, and we are literally, and expensively, throwing away our country's greatest assets. 2/3rds of our emission free power, a huge number of good paying jobs, many of which in otherwise low income or smaller towns, and the huge infrastructural investment we all know is critical to our country.
It's true- these plants aren't that expensive to run. The cost of this always-on, completely emission-free power with literally the *lowest* carbon footprint of any electricity source, is staggeringly low. It is that the market does not allow for reasonable compensation for this benefit. So natural gas, at a low cost and given a premium price, wins the day in the market fraught with externality concerns. It does not win the day for our enironment, for our economy, for our cost of electricity. Hopefully we and our leaders can stand up to stop this inanity before it is too late.
7
I observed earlier that neither "side" in this discussion is covering itself with glory on the science and engineering front. But let me propose a fun exercise for the "pro-nuclear" contributors:
I will stipulate that no AP1000 will ever cause harm to any human being through operation, malfunction, or waste disposal.
The challenge:
You are running for President as a major party candidate. Tell us your detailed plan for using NPP to greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Now, by plan I mean actual actions the Federal Government will take different from what it is doing now. Remember, you have to get them built in the next 10-20 years, and the result of building them has to be eliminating the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. (That would be several hundred reactors; I can't remember exactly.)
We will honor your effort by naming the plan after you, like Obamacare.
Any takers?
I will stipulate that no AP1000 will ever cause harm to any human being through operation, malfunction, or waste disposal.
The challenge:
You are running for President as a major party candidate. Tell us your detailed plan for using NPP to greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Now, by plan I mean actual actions the Federal Government will take different from what it is doing now. Remember, you have to get them built in the next 10-20 years, and the result of building them has to be eliminating the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. (That would be several hundred reactors; I can't remember exactly.)
We will honor your effort by naming the plan after you, like Obamacare.
Any takers?
Simple, have a Nuclear Portfolio standard which *mandates* that (say) 80% of all electricity generation in (say) 20 years SHALL be nuclear (the way it is in France, so we know it can be done). Have you heard of Renewable Portfolio Standards (which are in effect in most states)? This is simply the same thing, but for nuclear instead. If that sounds unfair to you, how do you think nuclear supporters feel about RPS policies?
Barring that, how about a simple price on carbon, where it is left to the markets to decide how best to reduce emissions? All emissions reduction options would then get to compete on a fair, level objective playing field, resulting in maximum emissions reduction at minimum cost.
Of course, this should be *in lieu* of heavy renewables subsidies and/or outright mandates for renewable use. One the carbon price policy is enacted, all those other (renewables only) policies are struck down.
At a minimum, that would put a halt to all nuclear plant closures. And depending on how high the CO2 price is, it may result in a large nuclear buildout over the mid to long term.
Barring that, how about a simple price on carbon, where it is left to the markets to decide how best to reduce emissions? All emissions reduction options would then get to compete on a fair, level objective playing field, resulting in maximum emissions reduction at minimum cost.
Of course, this should be *in lieu* of heavy renewables subsidies and/or outright mandates for renewable use. One the carbon price policy is enacted, all those other (renewables only) policies are struck down.
At a minimum, that would put a halt to all nuclear plant closures. And depending on how high the CO2 price is, it may result in a large nuclear buildout over the mid to long term.
1
@Jim,
So you are with Bernie-- Socialism Forever! We're going to be like France or Bust!
Seriously, I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that you would never get elected, and if you did, you would never get such a policy passed. And it wouldn't be opposition from hippie environmentalists and nuclear-phobes that would prevent it.
And I'm also sure you know the State portfolios are mostly a joke; they certainly aren't standing in the way of building NPP to supply the majority of the demand. What's the biggest renewable standard, 30% in California?
Now, the thing is, if you want to run on a carbon penalty and level-playing-field platform, that's fine, if I get to define what is a level playing field. But that will not achieve the delusional goal of your friends here who are ranting about nuclear as "the solution".
Unless you could actually do the Socialist/France thing, and pay for construction with taxpayer money, NPP are a niche product at best. That's simply sound engineering, and sound economics.
So you are with Bernie-- Socialism Forever! We're going to be like France or Bust!
Seriously, I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that you would never get elected, and if you did, you would never get such a policy passed. And it wouldn't be opposition from hippie environmentalists and nuclear-phobes that would prevent it.
And I'm also sure you know the State portfolios are mostly a joke; they certainly aren't standing in the way of building NPP to supply the majority of the demand. What's the biggest renewable standard, 30% in California?
Now, the thing is, if you want to run on a carbon penalty and level-playing-field platform, that's fine, if I get to define what is a level playing field. But that will not achieve the delusional goal of your friends here who are ranting about nuclear as "the solution".
Unless you could actually do the Socialist/France thing, and pay for construction with taxpayer money, NPP are a niche product at best. That's simply sound engineering, and sound economics.
Nobody died at Fukishima and Fossil fuel burning kills millions every year.
I would be happy to have an AP1000 in my home town.
I would be happy to have an AP1000 in my home town.
Since the beginning of civilian nuclear power in the USA, all of the nuclear reactor waste can fit inside a football field, 20 feet deep. 96% of the nuclear waste is nuclear fuel in the generation 4 nuclear reactors. Some of the fission products are either medically useful isotopes or industrially useful isotopes. Thus, a company can make money off the nuclear waste by creating a value added products which creates jobs. Only about 1% of the waste is the type of waste that has to be stored for a long time. That is a small price to pay for such a huge amount of energy. Highly concentrated sources of energy help save the environment because humans don't need to use it to survive. We need to use less of nature not more. Because we use a lot less wood today due to other highly concentrated sources of energy, we have more forested land today than 150 years ago.
Source:
Nuclear Waste: Fission Products & Transuranics from Thorium & Uranium - "Th" Documentary
Video: 16 Minutes and 16 Seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVCaUonrbE
Source:
Nuclear Waste: Fission Products & Transuranics from Thorium & Uranium - "Th" Documentary
Video: 16 Minutes and 16 Seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVCaUonrbE
7
Until they tell you they are storing it in your backyard.
2
The "continued concerns" about the nuclear industry are given far more credence than they deserve. The facts, i.e., nuclear's 50+ year operating record, clearly shows that those "concerns" are hopelessly overblown, if not downright invalid.
Meltdown risk? Fukushima, the only significant release of pollution in nuclear power's entire history, outside the old Soviet Union, caused no deaths, and the scientific consensus is that it will never have any measurable impact on public health. In stark contrast, worldwide fossil power generation causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every single year (~1000 per day!), and is a leading cause of global warming (whereas nuclear has negligible global warming impact). Even w/o global warming, nuclear would be far preferable to fossil fuels, from the environmental/health perspective.
Nuclear waste? This has always been a political, vs. technical problem. Many valid technical solutions, and locations, have been proposed, but all proposals are shot down for purely political reasons. NRC has concluded that Yucca Mountain will meet all the technical requirements, and will assure containment of the waste for as long as it remains hazardous (an impeccable standard that no other waste stream is held to). That nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term hazard is a myth. The fact is that many if not most of our other waste streams will pose a far larger hazard over the very-long term.
Meltdown risk? Fukushima, the only significant release of pollution in nuclear power's entire history, outside the old Soviet Union, caused no deaths, and the scientific consensus is that it will never have any measurable impact on public health. In stark contrast, worldwide fossil power generation causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every single year (~1000 per day!), and is a leading cause of global warming (whereas nuclear has negligible global warming impact). Even w/o global warming, nuclear would be far preferable to fossil fuels, from the environmental/health perspective.
Nuclear waste? This has always been a political, vs. technical problem. Many valid technical solutions, and locations, have been proposed, but all proposals are shot down for purely political reasons. NRC has concluded that Yucca Mountain will meet all the technical requirements, and will assure containment of the waste for as long as it remains hazardous (an impeccable standard that no other waste stream is held to). That nuclear waste is unique in terms of long-term hazard is a myth. The fact is that many if not most of our other waste streams will pose a far larger hazard over the very-long term.
9
The problem facing nuclear power is the low price of natural gas. This benefits us today, but generations born in this century will face ungovernable problems as global overheating caused largely by fossil fuel CO2 emissions undermines human civilization.
If the market reflected the harm caused by fossil fuels by adding an appropriate price for CO2 or requiring emissions to be captured and sequestered, nuclear power (which emits no CO2) might not seem so expensive. Wind and solar might still be cheaper, but they require other power for windless nights and cloudy days, usually gas if nuclear is unavailable. But if gas is appropriately priced, wind and solar wouldn’t be so cheap after all.
What about nuclear waste? Take GE Hitachi’s proposal to Britain to build modular advanced reactors at Sellafield, England, which has the world’s largest inventory of plutonium, and burn all of it while also producing electricity. If the Brits agree (currently they’re preoccupied with Brexit), it will still take years to work the proposition through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and build the reactors, so the future will take time. But what a future! Similar reactors could eliminate all nuclear fuel waste and excess plutonium and uranium while generating clean electricity indefinitely. And the reactors have been proven in government tests to be inherently safe, meaning when they overheat they shut themselves down.
Most important, they’d give the world a chance to stop global overheating.
If the market reflected the harm caused by fossil fuels by adding an appropriate price for CO2 or requiring emissions to be captured and sequestered, nuclear power (which emits no CO2) might not seem so expensive. Wind and solar might still be cheaper, but they require other power for windless nights and cloudy days, usually gas if nuclear is unavailable. But if gas is appropriately priced, wind and solar wouldn’t be so cheap after all.
What about nuclear waste? Take GE Hitachi’s proposal to Britain to build modular advanced reactors at Sellafield, England, which has the world’s largest inventory of plutonium, and burn all of it while also producing electricity. If the Brits agree (currently they’re preoccupied with Brexit), it will still take years to work the proposition through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and build the reactors, so the future will take time. But what a future! Similar reactors could eliminate all nuclear fuel waste and excess plutonium and uranium while generating clean electricity indefinitely. And the reactors have been proven in government tests to be inherently safe, meaning when they overheat they shut themselves down.
Most important, they’d give the world a chance to stop global overheating.
7
France has run mostly on nuclear power for decades, & I haven't heard of life threatening accidents there. Nuclear energy can be produced safely, if run by the government or heavily regulated. Fracking will never be safe & should be illegal.
6
In my opinion, we need to build more nuclear capacity as quickly as possible. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy
there is, and today there are reactor designs that are so safe that a meltdown could never happen.
Liberals think we should just turn the West into a giant solar farm to provide power to their east coast ivory towers. In a previous article, I was amazed that so many people wanted to get rid of the dams in the west...I mean, the Glen Canyon Damn produces 22,000 gigawatt hours of electricity a year, more than $30 billion worth of solar panels. The dam also prevent floods. However, the only acceptable power sources to liberals are solar and wind. I think solar and wind have a place, but quite frankly, nuclear power is the best source of power we have. Unlike solar and wind, it can be ramped up and down as needed. Also, wind farms are gigantic and ugly, it stinks to drive down the interstate and be surrounded by giant windmills and huge expanses of black solar panels.
there is, and today there are reactor designs that are so safe that a meltdown could never happen.
Liberals think we should just turn the West into a giant solar farm to provide power to their east coast ivory towers. In a previous article, I was amazed that so many people wanted to get rid of the dams in the west...I mean, the Glen Canyon Damn produces 22,000 gigawatt hours of electricity a year, more than $30 billion worth of solar panels. The dam also prevent floods. However, the only acceptable power sources to liberals are solar and wind. I think solar and wind have a place, but quite frankly, nuclear power is the best source of power we have. Unlike solar and wind, it can be ramped up and down as needed. Also, wind farms are gigantic and ugly, it stinks to drive down the interstate and be surrounded by giant windmills and huge expanses of black solar panels.
5
Did the pro nuke people even read the article? Do they understand data and the application of critical thought? Do facts like cost of production and what to do with obsolete plants have no bearing? And many, many more critical concerns are blithely ignored. If you can't hold up your side of an informed intelligent conversation how can you expect your comic book vision of an impossible future to be taken seriously?
Can you say Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? And where do you suggest the next facility be located? How about where you live? How about a nuclear power plant?
You'v got the "drastic expansion" part right, what I wonder is where people like you derive your comic book vision of a planet littered with nuclear power plants including the no worries part. How about in times of war, you don't think the plants would be targets? What about waste, do you really believe it will all be recycled and securely stored basically forever as your vision includes the never ending production. With all due respect you pro nuke people are propaganda victims who have swallowed whole a huge lie. When one thinks this through you realize it is the stuff of comic books where real life consequences do not exist.
Nuclear power advocacy is irresponsible at best, but more probably is accurately designated as insane. There are no viable answers to the big questions.
Can you say Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? And where do you suggest the next facility be located? How about where you live? How about a nuclear power plant?
You'v got the "drastic expansion" part right, what I wonder is where people like you derive your comic book vision of a planet littered with nuclear power plants including the no worries part. How about in times of war, you don't think the plants would be targets? What about waste, do you really believe it will all be recycled and securely stored basically forever as your vision includes the never ending production. With all due respect you pro nuke people are propaganda victims who have swallowed whole a huge lie. When one thinks this through you realize it is the stuff of comic books where real life consequences do not exist.
Nuclear power advocacy is irresponsible at best, but more probably is accurately designated as insane. There are no viable answers to the big questions.
5
Nuclear Power is 100% unsafe. It is beyond lunacy to think otherwise.
The waste product from Nuclear Plants, Plutonium, is extremely toxic, and has a poisonous "shelf life" of 250-to-500 THOUSAND Years. Who, with any sense of ethics or sanity, can promise to keep this huge amount of toxins "safe" - for even 1000 years, from terrorists, earthquakes, volcanic activity, or seeping/leaking into the ground water? The high rates of cancers, the horrifying birth defects, the permanent contamination of water and soil cannot ever be healed or corrected.
A bag of Plutonium the size of a loaf of bread is enough to kill every man, woman and child in the United States. We have freight cars full of this poison. Yet, the Companies producing this "energy source" say; "Oh, wait, NOW we've made it safe". Or, "We just need a few more Studies on the matter".
Rubbish and lies.
When logic and ethics are overcome by sheer greed, we are all doomed to witness what too many Veterans were forced to watch at the Nevada Test Site after WW2. THAT kind of death is not a pretty picture.
The waste product from Nuclear Plants, Plutonium, is extremely toxic, and has a poisonous "shelf life" of 250-to-500 THOUSAND Years. Who, with any sense of ethics or sanity, can promise to keep this huge amount of toxins "safe" - for even 1000 years, from terrorists, earthquakes, volcanic activity, or seeping/leaking into the ground water? The high rates of cancers, the horrifying birth defects, the permanent contamination of water and soil cannot ever be healed or corrected.
A bag of Plutonium the size of a loaf of bread is enough to kill every man, woman and child in the United States. We have freight cars full of this poison. Yet, the Companies producing this "energy source" say; "Oh, wait, NOW we've made it safe". Or, "We just need a few more Studies on the matter".
Rubbish and lies.
When logic and ethics are overcome by sheer greed, we are all doomed to witness what too many Veterans were forced to watch at the Nevada Test Site after WW2. THAT kind of death is not a pretty picture.
6
Moniz is a nuke industry shill. His job appears to be to lie to benefit the industry. For example:
" We’re supposed to be adding zero-carbon sources, not subtracting,' Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary, said recently at a symposium that the department convened to explore ways to improve the industry’s prospects."
Nuclear power produces carbon than any renewable. One must consider the entire fuel cycle: http://www.radiationtruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NuclearPowersCa...
The radioactive waste problem will never be solved. It is an immoral burden to pass onto future generations for the profit of this industry!
" We’re supposed to be adding zero-carbon sources, not subtracting,' Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary, said recently at a symposium that the department convened to explore ways to improve the industry’s prospects."
Nuclear power produces carbon than any renewable. One must consider the entire fuel cycle: http://www.radiationtruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NuclearPowersCa...
The radioactive waste problem will never be solved. It is an immoral burden to pass onto future generations for the profit of this industry!
5
Maine Yankee, decommissioned in 1996, has 64 “dry cask canisters” holding spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. From Bangor Daily News Mar 16, 2011: “…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 - $8 mil annl tab to store & monitor radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, an average of $7 mil x 21 yrs = $147 mil. It produced NO electricity in those 19 years, just cost money.
Well, since there is no other options for storing this poison, and needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years, that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Bil, just in storage costs. One plant, that produced electricity from 72-96, a short 24 years.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
Well, since there is no other options for storing this poison, and needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years, that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Bil, just in storage costs. One plant, that produced electricity from 72-96, a short 24 years.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
9
Most homeowners insurance does NOT cover nuclear related accidents.
Take a closer look, it's entirely uncovered. And if you owe money on your mortgage you must continue to pay it, even though it may be in a contaminated zone. Good luck selling or renting that!
Take a closer look, it's entirely uncovered. And if you owe money on your mortgage you must continue to pay it, even though it may be in a contaminated zone. Good luck selling or renting that!
2
Fear of nuclear is like fear of flying. It sounds scary but it is goddamn safe. France is an incredibly clean industrial country on Earth with 1970's technology.
Nuclear does not make sense everywhere, but where renewable resources are scarce and population density is high, it needs to be part of the clean energy portfolio.
Watch Pandora's promise.
Nuclear does not make sense everywhere, but where renewable resources are scarce and population density is high, it needs to be part of the clean energy portfolio.
Watch Pandora's promise.
11
Oh give it up already. The negative environmental and effects of mining uranium, cooling and improperly storing spent fuel far outweigh the so-called "carbon-free" emissions of nuclear power. And, it isn't so cheap, as we have seen in recent power auctions in which nuclear power plants could not compete. It is very expensive to properly decommission nuclear power plants, but it is a better use of utility shareholders funds than building new ones (that's for you, Southern Company).
10
You should cite claims like that, because most analysis I have seen by credible experts absolutely disagrees.
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
4
There is so much liability that nuclear plant construction corps cannot get private insurance at all; hence all we tax payers are left on the hook of course. There are solutions emerging that are disruptive in potential they are such a radical improvement, which is partly why you are not aware of them. As a less radical example, just a simple improvement in wind turbine design gives magnitudes of efficiency gain and safety, see http://world-harmony.com/max-velocity-turbine/. But this is nothing to new physics technology, termed "open systems" or "zero point" (proven physics reality) which makes use of what you might term 'ambient' energy sources not yet generally acknowledged. The emergence has begun; see http://ufsolution.wix.com/unifiedfieldsolution if you are open to question old assumptions and are serious about finding solutions.
3
It is not the subsidies for nuclear power that should be questioned. it is the subsidies for gas, oil and coal that should be eliminated .
That also applies to Energy companies who are still building carbon guzzling generating facilities... Using all sorts of tax payer fueled incentives, depreciation, cheap loans, incentives, tax rebates etc.
What we need is at a minimum of at least $1 gallon carbon tax on gas and the equivalent tax based on BTU generated on natural gas .
These changes in taxation plus elimination of all tax payer incentives for the users and the producers will help to minimize the subsidies needed for nuclear, solar, wind, hydro.
Revenues to be spent on infra-structure a hardened National Energy Grid (against disruptive solar flares, EMP, etc.)
Rebuilding and renewing America for a greener prosperous 21st century
That also applies to Energy companies who are still building carbon guzzling generating facilities... Using all sorts of tax payer fueled incentives, depreciation, cheap loans, incentives, tax rebates etc.
What we need is at a minimum of at least $1 gallon carbon tax on gas and the equivalent tax based on BTU generated on natural gas .
These changes in taxation plus elimination of all tax payer incentives for the users and the producers will help to minimize the subsidies needed for nuclear, solar, wind, hydro.
Revenues to be spent on infra-structure a hardened National Energy Grid (against disruptive solar flares, EMP, etc.)
Rebuilding and renewing America for a greener prosperous 21st century
4
Profitability of today's nuclear power plants are influenced not only by electricity supply and the dropping cost of natural gas, another electricity source, but also by the "linear no-threshhold model." This zero-tolerance policy for any level of radiation is not supported by science and drives up costs of plant construction and operations, considerably. All the same, new approaches to nuclear power are in development, including Small Modular Reactors. About which, more here: http://thelens.news/2016/05/18/renewables-nuclear-energy-small-modular-r...
2
Oddly enough, LNT applies only to the nuclear industry, and not the mineral-intensive energy companies which contribute for more to a radioactive biosphere. LNT is not only bad science, it is a double standard.
2
Odd. Many of the naysayers don't seem to notice that the most of the negatives they identify stem from for-profit nuclear power. Not nuclear power itself. I wonder if they can see that distinction.
3
There is plenty of room in our system for public power authorities. In New York State there is the New York Power Authority that is responsible for the hydropower projects around Niagara. There is the Tennessee Valley Authority (which runs nuclear power and hydropower facilities). Given the lopsided supports that exist for different generation technology in many deregulated energy markets it makes sense to consider public nuclear power authorities as one way of supporting existing plants and developing new ones.
2
No other source of power comes anywhere close to the energy density and efficiency of nuclear. This is true even when current nuclear plants are two or even three generations behind the state of the art - as they are in the US. Advances in thorium and rebreeder/recycler nuclear plants show even more promise, especially thorium, when it comes to improved safety (modern plant designs cannot melt-down, for example, and instead self-terminate), massive energy efficiency, and vastly reduced waste (in the case of rebreeders) or essentially no toxic waste at all (thorium).
Then again, simple people are scared of invisible things like forms of radiation that they don't even understand, and scary atoms, so whatever. Let's burn us some coal, herp derp! What do you mean burning coal produces more radioactivity than nuclear power? I like fire, fire is easy to understand, just burn stuff.
Then again, simple people are scared of invisible things like forms of radiation that they don't even understand, and scary atoms, so whatever. Let's burn us some coal, herp derp! What do you mean burning coal produces more radioactivity than nuclear power? I like fire, fire is easy to understand, just burn stuff.
5
Honestly, not to be biased, I cannot think of any reason why we would pursue any other energy source. I am not one for conspiracy theories, by people in charge have something to gain if they prevent people from having energy liberation.
1
Interesting how Abraham Scarr (Illinois Public Interest Research Group) said, “We need to be building the 21st-century energy system and not continuing to subsidize the energy system of the past” ... I agree! Wind power has been used since the MIDDLE AGES and we've been using the sun's energy for everyday tasks (think drying clothes) since the dawn of textiles! Instead let's support a CLEAN, SAFE, & ENERGY DENSE source of power developed in the 20th and 21st centuries!
If you're going to criticize nuclear, have legitimate, thought out, and justified reasons... not whatever the fossil fuel industry spoon feeds you. We're smarter than that, people!
As for environmental efficiency, that's all well and good, but nothing can make up for the MILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that will be added to the atmosphere to replace the lost nuclear plants, there's simply no way wind + solar + efficiency sum up to offset the overnight loss of carbon-free power.
Economics is the only logical argument you can make against nuclear power and anyone who is so short-sighted to make that argument isn't being rational. If you assign any economic value to ZERO CARBON energy then nuclear power is clearly worthwhile, especially if we want to be realistic about meeting COP21 goals! So let's get off carbon through every means possible and make FORWARD progress rather than heading BACK towards 1990 levels...
If you're going to criticize nuclear, have legitimate, thought out, and justified reasons... not whatever the fossil fuel industry spoon feeds you. We're smarter than that, people!
As for environmental efficiency, that's all well and good, but nothing can make up for the MILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that will be added to the atmosphere to replace the lost nuclear plants, there's simply no way wind + solar + efficiency sum up to offset the overnight loss of carbon-free power.
Economics is the only logical argument you can make against nuclear power and anyone who is so short-sighted to make that argument isn't being rational. If you assign any economic value to ZERO CARBON energy then nuclear power is clearly worthwhile, especially if we want to be realistic about meeting COP21 goals! So let's get off carbon through every means possible and make FORWARD progress rather than heading BACK towards 1990 levels...
5
Exactly right. Wind and solar stand for energy poverty, which is one of the leading causes of overpopulation.
1
I'm not advocating not using wind or solar. I'm advocating common, LONG-TERM sense that's best for our economy, our families, and our planet. We need a mix, and that HAS TO INCLUDE NUCLEAR!
I guess I did demonstrate how easy it is to mince words though!
I guess I did demonstrate how easy it is to mince words though!
2
Nuclear is carbon-free without question. But there is no way short of Orwellian Newspeak that it an be called clean energy. Certainly extend the functional lifetime of existing plants by all reasonable means, but there is no way we should be adding nuclear plants. If anything I think most Americans have learned to trust large companies less to operate delicate systems for the public good.
Nuclear is not carbon free. It has a huge carbon footprint before a single mega watt is produced and currently needs off-site power to run safety systems when the reactors shut down unexpectedly. Indian Point had 7 unplanned outages in the past year. In addition, the fission process actually produces radioactive carbon 14 that has a half life of over 5700 years.
3
Really Jake?
Have you looked at the entire fuel cycle, not just operating reactors. When you do you see that nuclear produces more greenhouse gases than any renewable. NP is expensive, dangerous & dirty. Fukushima is destroying the worlds oceans, starting with the Pacific.
Have you looked at the entire fuel cycle, not just operating reactors. When you do you see that nuclear produces more greenhouse gases than any renewable. NP is expensive, dangerous & dirty. Fukushima is destroying the worlds oceans, starting with the Pacific.
3
The US is falling behind in nuclear and will end up on the bottom of energy production, essentially a third world country as we are with our education system.
The US has plans 5 plants under construction and possible another 17 that are proposed.
World wide, the are 440 operating reactors.
Another 65 under construction including our 5.
173 are planned (ready to start construction)
And 330 are proposed.
While the rest of the world is moving forward, the US, with the best safety record, is moving backwards. No wonder companies are leaving, you can't produce without reliable power sources.
The US has plans 5 plants under construction and possible another 17 that are proposed.
World wide, the are 440 operating reactors.
Another 65 under construction including our 5.
173 are planned (ready to start construction)
And 330 are proposed.
While the rest of the world is moving forward, the US, with the best safety record, is moving backwards. No wonder companies are leaving, you can't produce without reliable power sources.
2
SAdly, this article reads more like an op-ed written by an industry insider than an objective reporter. The commercial nuclear industry has been around for almost 6 decades and should be considered a mature industry. But any economist understand how difficult it is to remove entrenched subsidies. And for this industry more than any other energy utility, subsidies totaling 5.5 cents per kWh are their lifeblood. The paramount subsidy is the Price-Anderson Act, as updated and amended over the years. The maximum liability insurance that any American reactor can obtain from the insurance and reinsurance industries is $330 million, and taxpayers and ratepayers will be responsible for all of the rest. Every other energy utility is responsible for its own insurance needs.
Contrast this with one of our newest entrants, wind power, which currently has a 2.2 cents per kWh subsidy now scheduled for phase-out over 5 years. Wind power now contributes 5 percent of U.S. electricity, and its costs have dropped 66% over the last 6 years.
Energy efficiency, smarter grid demand modulation, wind at 5%, solar at 1%, natural gas currently in surplus. Nuclear is failing as an industry, with its reactors down from a peak of 121 plants. It is failing because it cannot compete in a deregulated environment. Love it or hate it, everyone must understand that it fails in a free market environment.
Not carbon free incidentally, about third the CO2 of natural gas.
Contrast this with one of our newest entrants, wind power, which currently has a 2.2 cents per kWh subsidy now scheduled for phase-out over 5 years. Wind power now contributes 5 percent of U.S. electricity, and its costs have dropped 66% over the last 6 years.
Energy efficiency, smarter grid demand modulation, wind at 5%, solar at 1%, natural gas currently in surplus. Nuclear is failing as an industry, with its reactors down from a peak of 121 plants. It is failing because it cannot compete in a deregulated environment. Love it or hate it, everyone must understand that it fails in a free market environment.
Not carbon free incidentally, about third the CO2 of natural gas.
8
Per KWhr returned, nuclear has some of the lowest subsidy, next to fossil fuels. It should be a mature industry, but environmentalists keep imposing bogus and ever-changing regulations keeping costs high. If anything, nuclear is being bullied out of business by lobbyists.
4
My first post here was censored in which I spoke about a "media blackout" on the ongoing disaster of Fukushima and the consequences of dumping hundreds of tons of radioactive water into the Pacific and that Japan does not know how to solve this endless problem of radioactive water after the 3 meltdowns. NY Times just proved my point by not posting my previous comment. So let's see if the NY Times' team is democratically fair about posting this:
An American Fukushima May Be Closer Than You Think
"s.e. smith, Care2: The National Academy of Sciences recently released a study which finds that the catastrophe at Fukushima could repeat itself on US soil. Worse yet, the consequences of a Fukushima-like meltdown in the United States would be much more devastating than they were in Japan."
source: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36239-an-american-fukushima-may-be...
I DARE them to post it! People have a right to know the TRUTH!!
An American Fukushima May Be Closer Than You Think
"s.e. smith, Care2: The National Academy of Sciences recently released a study which finds that the catastrophe at Fukushima could repeat itself on US soil. Worse yet, the consequences of a Fukushima-like meltdown in the United States would be much more devastating than they were in Japan."
source: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36239-an-american-fukushima-may-be...
I DARE them to post it! People have a right to know the TRUTH!!
9
"s.e. smith is a writer, agitator, and commentator based in Northern California, with a journalistic focus on social issues, particularly gender, prison reform, disability rights, environmental justice, queerness, class, and the intersections thereof, with a special interest in rural subjects."
He left out nuclear expert. I guess if your an expert on "gueerness" your can be an expert on anything.
Additionally, the NAS found that the NRC and the industry have addressed all the issues identified, except for 2 that require additional study.
He left out nuclear expert. I guess if your an expert on "gueerness" your can be an expert on anything.
Additionally, the NAS found that the NRC and the industry have addressed all the issues identified, except for 2 that require additional study.
1
The radioactive water is not a threat to aquatic organisms. Do you know what is a threat to ocean life? Coral bleaching from fossil fuel plants that we refuse to replace with nuclear plants.
6
Unfortunately, the article doesn't examine the safety aspect of modern nuclear power technology. Today's plants are extremely safe, as the technology used is light years ahead of that used back in the days of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc. Waste storage technology has also come a long way. Today's plants are very, very safe, and that's a simple fact. Combine this with the facts mentioned in the article, such as ultra-low emissions, near-zero environmental impact, very low consumer power costs, and extremely high reliability, and the choice becomes clear. This country should advance a policy of replacing all existing power plants with nuclear power facilities. They are safe, they are cost-effective, and they will allow us to become energy-independent for once and for all.
5
Shellenberger is not an environmentalist. He is with the Breakthrough Institute which has been pushing nuclear energy and trying to keep El Diablo nuclear reactor open in California against the enviromentalists. There is not one enviornmentalist mentioned in this article supporting nuclear energy. Period. Nuclear energy is the single most expensive; the aging power plants are bombs waiting to go off and the issue of nuclear waste, tons of it around the nation and sitting in fuel pools is a deadly one. The nation's most radioactive wastes at Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington still haven't been cleaned up with old leaking tanks and it is a slow moving Fukushima disaster as waste can seep into the ground and the already-contamined Columbia river. Heaven help us if a fire like the one at Ft. Murray Canada starts at a nearby forests. Hanford has 65,000 million gallons of highly radioactive waste in the soil and tanks. Enough plutonium it is estimated to create 50 bombs. All of North America would be contaminated.
10
Perhaps mainstream environmentalists are not evidence-based? Michael Shellenberger is probably one of the most ground-breaking environmental thinkers of this generation.
2
Anyone opposed to nuclear power is NOT an environmentalist. The facts do matter, and the fact is that nuclear's health and environmental impacts are as small as renewables.
Thanks to "environmentalists" efforts in California, power-sector fossil fuel use, and CO2 emissions, have actually been going up, despite all the renewable generation that has been built (at great expense and with much fanfare). If Diablo closes, the situation will get even worse.
More specifically, anyone who can't figure out that new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear, is clearly no environmentalists. The "environmental" groups in CA fail this simple test.
Thanks to "environmentalists" efforts in California, power-sector fossil fuel use, and CO2 emissions, have actually been going up, despite all the renewable generation that has been built (at great expense and with much fanfare). If Diablo closes, the situation will get even worse.
More specifically, anyone who can't figure out that new renewable generation should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear, is clearly no environmentalists. The "environmental" groups in CA fail this simple test.
2
I am exhausted by the NYT's bias toward nuclear power. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine just published a report on the threat posed by the nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants - a threat downplayed by the NRC and the NEI. The NYT's has not covered the ongoing problems at Indian Point regarding structural decay and leaks continually found at the plant. Nor has it ever done a satisfactory job investigating the laughable evacuation plan. I too am desperate to address climate change, but proposing that nuclear power should be part of the answer is a myopic idea that ignores the current threat to the earth by the radioactive waste created and the potential for catastrophic disasters. Enough! We can come up with better solutions to Climate Change!
14
So how many dead or injured at Indian Point so far?
Compare to the statistics for coal.
Coal needs to be phased out ASAP
and that wont happen with solar and wind.
That is why more and more reasonable people recognize that nuclear should be a part of the mix.
The reactors we have should be kept running until they can be replaced by a new generation of much safer and more efficient reactors. Or, if we are there then, by fully renewable energy sources.
Compare to the statistics for coal.
Coal needs to be phased out ASAP
and that wont happen with solar and wind.
That is why more and more reasonable people recognize that nuclear should be a part of the mix.
The reactors we have should be kept running until they can be replaced by a new generation of much safer and more efficient reactors. Or, if we are there then, by fully renewable energy sources.
5
These same people told us that we were seconds away from a nuclear war. Its one thing to be aware and another to be too frightened to act. Shame on the anti nuclear lobby.
1
Regarding "just published a report on the threat posed by the nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants - a threat downplayed by the NRC and the NEI."
Although I haven't found nor read the "report" mentioned, suggest that temporary and permanent storage are being conflated [not uncommon with any contentious subject]. I believe the nuclear industry development history was always geared/regulated with the view that there would SOME DAY be a permanent repository for spent fuel or perhaps some method of recycling. I am not aware of any permit being issued wherein the permanent storage of spent fuel was to be at the same facility. Thus, the on-going practice of on-site storage is both costly and of concern. The analogy is licensing [and hiring] to have garbage picked up but decrying the prospect of disposing [whether land-filled or waste-to-energy] of it.
Although I haven't found nor read the "report" mentioned, suggest that temporary and permanent storage are being conflated [not uncommon with any contentious subject]. I believe the nuclear industry development history was always geared/regulated with the view that there would SOME DAY be a permanent repository for spent fuel or perhaps some method of recycling. I am not aware of any permit being issued wherein the permanent storage of spent fuel was to be at the same facility. Thus, the on-going practice of on-site storage is both costly and of concern. The analogy is licensing [and hiring] to have garbage picked up but decrying the prospect of disposing [whether land-filled or waste-to-energy] of it.
I have seen a post or two that lambast those opposed to wind or solar due to "scenic" or other NIMBY concerns. However, it should not be lost in the debate that many of our natural areas, especially northeastern forests at higher elevations are faced with many serious threats, including fragmentation. That can lead to loss of biodiversity, increased invasion by nonnative species and reduced water quality. Saving these forests is not a NIMBY issue but is important to protect these national and internationally significant resources.
4
First I think one of the major problems with nuclear power is there is competition for their construction. This means every power plant that was built makes them harder to inspect and difficult to give a set of standards to meet. I know some will start screaming, but building any new plants, if they were built to a design that could be safety inspected much more effectively would mean plants all the same would only need to conform to one set of standards. What I am saying is for a nuclear future nationalizing the industry with a built in profit, would benefit the nation in many ways.
Think of the cost in human misery, relocation, cleanup if possible at all for a major city. If a much safer plant built, was producing carbon free power based on on a standard design that had a preset life span, building in rotation, would that not provide long term power needs into the next century.
But heaven forbid capitalism, in some cases could have a horrifying outcome, I guess that thought is not American.
Think of the cost in human misery, relocation, cleanup if possible at all for a major city. If a much safer plant built, was producing carbon free power based on on a standard design that had a preset life span, building in rotation, would that not provide long term power needs into the next century.
But heaven forbid capitalism, in some cases could have a horrifying outcome, I guess that thought is not American.
Even if a "safe nuke" could be built...the bean counters would cut corners and assure failure. NO nukes should ever be built and existing ones should be replaced with wind and solar.
4
In California, we only have one nuclear plant left, Diablo Canyon. If it closes, the additional carbon emissions from switching to methane plants would be like adding 2 MILLION cars to the road, or completely erasing all of the solar and 3/4 the wind we've built in this state. Is that what we should be doing in the face of climate change? Waste is a long term problem, but if we don't throw everything we have at climate change, there won't be a long term. That's why we're organizing the first climate march for nuclear-- the March for Environmental Hope June 24-28. I'm marching. Join us.
3
If a private electricity provider, such as Excelon, cannot provide their service / product at a price the public consumer is willing to pay, then the provider either lowers their price to be competitive, finds other buyers, or loses money for the company owners & shareholders. Under what form of free-market capitalism is the consumer forced to pay for the difference in costs? Did miss that day in Econ 101 class?
3
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else". Winston Churchill said this, and it certainly applies here. Solar and wind power will rise and fall soon enough, simply because it's too diffuse and erratic, and cannot survive without subsidies. Complaints about the current fleet of nuclear plants is like complaining about the noise in ancient DC-3 airplanes. New designs correct the deficiencies of the old plants. We need to build some of them and see how they do.
2
Nuclear waste is deadly and very long lasting. We still don't have a solution. After many decades, we still store highly radioactive, highly toxic liquid waste from WW2 and cold war bombmaking in barrels on the Washington desert, with occasional leaks into the Columbia river. Terrorists would love to get their hands on the growing pile of nuclear waste to make dirty bombs. The dream of safe nuclear power is just a dream.
5
We do have a solution: Molten Salt Reactors. Different technology that creates only small amounts of short lived low grade waste and can also burn high grade waste. I wrote a long comment on these in this string--you can read it, or Google MSR for yourself.
These plants are DEATH STARS. I worked in one and when you see their spent fuel pools crammed with the most toxic poison known to man, you will see my point. The industry exists only because of billions in tax payer subsidies, which could easily return the favor by killing all of those tax payers. Renewables can replace all of them right now.
4
There is no escape from Cape Cod if Pilgrim power plant in Plymouth ever has a problem. No evacuation plans and the sustaining winds will blow radioactivity right on to the Cape. It is going to be shuttered in the future but in the meanwhile it is the most disabled plant of all in the US. It is over 40 years old and is run analog. How many of you have any technology in your home that is over 40 years old? Would you use a 40 year old computer? No. The fact that it is still operating unsafely today is a potential crime against humanity. It is also vulnerable from terrorist attacks from both sea and air. Pilgrim intakes 100's of millions of gallons of seawater daily from Cape Cod Bay and not only heats up the water but damages/kills fish and other aquatic life. This is all about private profit and the public paying for its upkeep and storage of radioactive waste on site for generations to come.
Can one imagine what a disaster it'd be if the Cape was threatened in the middle of the summer. No way, no how would people be safely evacuated. Matter of fact the bridges will be closed in case of an emergency according to the MEMA, the state emergency planning commission.
Have a nice vacation if you plan to be on Cape Cod this summer.
www.pilgrimwatch.org
Can one imagine what a disaster it'd be if the Cape was threatened in the middle of the summer. No way, no how would people be safely evacuated. Matter of fact the bridges will be closed in case of an emergency according to the MEMA, the state emergency planning commission.
Have a nice vacation if you plan to be on Cape Cod this summer.
www.pilgrimwatch.org
6
Are you saying you are more comfortable with the radioactive elements released from burning fossil fuels? Are you more comfortable with the radioactive elements dug up from mining metals for wind and solar?
2
Nuclear might be nice, but it is also expensive and when push came to a shove, the Illinois legislature seems not to have approved a $1 Billion bail-out to save it.
Seems Natural Gas from fracking is cheaper.
I'm sure the legislature would accept $1 Billion from the Greens to keep the plant running.
Seems Natural Gas from fracking is cheaper.
I'm sure the legislature would accept $1 Billion from the Greens to keep the plant running.
The mortality rate for Nuclear in the US, including all sources in the chain is .01 (deaths/trillionkWhr), the same as that for hydroelectric. We continue to make decisions effecting our environment on irrational beliefs. My grandchildren will curse this generation for its stupidity. The Navy knows the best source of energy, they have 100 nuclear reactors in operation. In this case the environmental establishment is its own worst enemy.
3
Good for the Navy. I don't know why the Navy does not do more to promote it. Nuclear power use is necessary for national security.
2
Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors are based on a different technology than conventional nuclear, and lack the problems of safety and waste hysterically reiterated in these comments. MSR (or LFTR) burn cheap and widely available thorium, can't have a catastrophic accident, generate only small amounts of low-grade, short-half-life waste, and can be used to burn high-grade waste. The US had working prototype reactors in the 60s but then stopped development. Now the Chinese are using our publications to redevelop the technology, patenting advances as they go. Since wind and solar will always need a reliable base-load energy supply, it seems odd that this superior technology is almost never discussed in the main stream media, and that all commenters seem unaware of it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540991/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor...
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-what-is-a-lftr/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540991/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor...
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-what-is-a-lftr/
3
"In March, Ohio regulators approved contracts between the utility AEP and the power company FirstEnergy that guaranteed set rates for power from FirstEnergy’s struggling nuclear and coal plants even if other plants in the market charged less."
"...And coal plants..."! This is why we can't trust COLA-written GOP legislation. They always overreach and try to slip stuff in in a shady manner.
"...And coal plants..."! This is why we can't trust COLA-written GOP legislation. They always overreach and try to slip stuff in in a shady manner.
1
Nuclear power production has all the earmarks of a viable technology, if reducing carbon emissions is the goal, but it will never reach its potential unless we use and improve it. No technology is without problems or risks, but through the intelligent use of new technologies and the improvements that will likely ensue, the problems and risks of new technologies can be minimized over time. Carbon based fuels carry a lot of baggage and risks too when you consider the costs and hazards of extraction and transportation. They also have severe global warming consequences. It is time to face reality and move on.
2
I don't know if nuclear power is safe or not. Here in New York the governor is trying to close a nuclear facility, Indian Point, because of fears of accidental release of radiation near the population of Westchester and NYC. But in Upstate New York the governor wants to keep open a similiar facility because he needs it to meet his plan of "green" energy. To me, it sounds like a political, as opposed to an enviromental or scientific basis of nuclear use; the discussion should be better than where a politician hopes to get more votes.
1
Gov. Cuomo alert to reality that Indian Point, leaking into the Hudson, is alarming danger to very large population metro NYC. On other hand, upstate N.Y. needs the jobs the plant there would afford. Always alert to the math, Cuomo sees his bifurcated choice a win-win for votes. His concerns nowhere near the the safety & concern for the lives of people.
1
Japan's nuclear power plant is still leaking radioactive water after five years. We can't afford this route.
7
Nuclear power is, uniquely, the technology that has deprived government of trillions of dollars in fossil fuel tax revenues while saving the lives of millions of people who would have had to die in order for those revenues to be obtained.
That is why it is opposed by the best environmentalists money can buy, and that is why it gains support despite "safety concerns": those concerns are not genuine.
That is why it is opposed by the best environmentalists money can buy, and that is why it gains support despite "safety concerns": those concerns are not genuine.
2
This is a sales pitch. Missing is the price we're asked to pay. Give us some numbers, if you want to close the deal. How much will it cost for a kWh of electricity when your new plant comes on line in about 10 years.
Here's your challenge: Solar or wind power and the storage capacity to make it 24-hour-reliable costs about 15 cents using today's off the shelf technology. Can you match that? If not, then consider yourself in the museum business.
Buggy whips, coal fired steam locomotives, WW2 era battleships, massive reciprocating aircraft engines, the telegraph--all interesting artifacts and improvements over what they replaced. Museum pieces, non-the-less, just like nuclear electricity generating plants, perhaps.
Here's your challenge: Solar or wind power and the storage capacity to make it 24-hour-reliable costs about 15 cents using today's off the shelf technology. Can you match that? If not, then consider yourself in the museum business.
Buggy whips, coal fired steam locomotives, WW2 era battleships, massive reciprocating aircraft engines, the telegraph--all interesting artifacts and improvements over what they replaced. Museum pieces, non-the-less, just like nuclear electricity generating plants, perhaps.
3
When you compare the levelized cost of electricity for all generation technologies, which looks at the entire life cycle costs, not just capital construction costs, nuclear compares well with other low-carbon sources. According to the US Energy Information Administration advanced nuclear LCOE is projected to be between $92 and $101 per MWh. Solar PV (without storage) is projected to be between $98 and $193 per MWh.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
1
Problem is there is no "advanced nuclear" available. Real world is Hinkley Point in England. Guaranteed price to the operator is about $134/MWh based on today's exchange rate. That's 13.4 cents/kWh before distribution costs. To compare apples to apples, those costs have to be added. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/hinkley-point-european-comm...
On the other side, off-the-shelf residential PV for much of the U.S. can deliver electricity to the home's breaker box for about 10 cents/kWh.
On the other side, off-the-shelf residential PV for much of the U.S. can deliver electricity to the home's breaker box for about 10 cents/kWh.
No matter who you are or what you believe about nuclear power: read Svetlana Alexievich's "Voices from Chernobyl," the oral history of those who survived the disaster. How could any sane person support nuclear power after reading the accounts of flesh melting from radiation exposure, children born with no body openings, and the wholesale destruction of an ecosystem? Even today an "exclusion zone" of 19 square miles is uninhabited. It will remain unsafe for 20,000 years. If the true consequences of Chernobyl were known in America, the nuclear power industry would permanently collapse.
6
Anybody talk up Thorium Reactors? (L.F.T.R) We also need to have private jets run on hydrogen and Nuclear Powered Airlines. The tech has been around since the fifties , now we need to use it. Patent 672256
3
It's about time nuclear power was acknowledged for delivering one fifth of our nation's power reliably and safely for decades despite the relative lack of investment in new technologies.
Ah, the lingering problem. What to do with the steadily increasing waste?
President Obama "kicked the can" down the road to future generations by acquiescing to Senator Reid. He scuttled the Yucca Mountain Project and voided $35 billion and 20 years of work by world-class firms, like Bechtel.
Does letting nuclear waste stack up across the country without a solution make sense? Does paying the utilities hundreds of millions each year to temporarily hold on to the waste solve anything? Is NEI so used to the payouts that they don't care? Is "no action" the safe and secure nuclear waste alternative that the President and Mr. Reid think our country deserves?
The Blue Ribbon panel was a joke. It spent millions to tell us what we already knew and thwarted progress on probably the most advanced, highly engineered, geologically suitable, and greatly needed nuclear waste repository in the world.
Congratulations guys for wasting billions, and on a political whim, and for arresting decades of progress on nuclear safety!
Ah, the lingering problem. What to do with the steadily increasing waste?
President Obama "kicked the can" down the road to future generations by acquiescing to Senator Reid. He scuttled the Yucca Mountain Project and voided $35 billion and 20 years of work by world-class firms, like Bechtel.
Does letting nuclear waste stack up across the country without a solution make sense? Does paying the utilities hundreds of millions each year to temporarily hold on to the waste solve anything? Is NEI so used to the payouts that they don't care? Is "no action" the safe and secure nuclear waste alternative that the President and Mr. Reid think our country deserves?
The Blue Ribbon panel was a joke. It spent millions to tell us what we already knew and thwarted progress on probably the most advanced, highly engineered, geologically suitable, and greatly needed nuclear waste repository in the world.
Congratulations guys for wasting billions, and on a political whim, and for arresting decades of progress on nuclear safety!
1
Thank you, PNN, for pointing out the glaring omission in this piece -- the danger created by nuclear waste that keeps its radioactivity FOREVER. It is a problem that is at least as serious as exposure to radioactive leaks of the fuel itself. Yet there is virtually no mention of its impact on the true cost of electricity generated by nuclear plants.
"Hey everyone, we're carbon-free! Pay no attention to the spent fuel rods behind the curtain!"
"Hey everyone, we're carbon-free! Pay no attention to the spent fuel rods behind the curtain!"
3
We can reduce it to the long lived stuff and shoot it into the sun. The price of delivery to space has dropped by a factor of 10 since this approach was first evaluated. It is now less than $850/lb. and still dropping. Create a business opportunity and our industry will respond. Remember we are still a capitalist society.
1
Nuclear power is yet another example of the socialism in this country for the rich and the powerful. If it wasn't for the Price-Anderson Act, which puts a minuscule cap on recoverable damages in the event of a Chernobyl- or Fukishima-like incident, there would be no nuclear power in the U.S. Other than the firearms industry, no other industry in this country has such a benefit. If solar and wind got the same level of financial support from the Government that nuclear has, we wouldn't have nuclear.
Would Secretary Moritz support nuclear power if the waste was stored near his home and its value decreased because of that proximity?
Would Secretary Moritz support nuclear power if the waste was stored near his home and its value decreased because of that proximity?
6
Nuclear power plants differ from James Watts 17th century steam engines as reliable generators only in degree, not essentially in kind. The problems are with the imagination and political will to challenge the model. A quick click on 'New York State wind energy' will yield a map of high potential wind generation areas. Distributed grid generation is not just feasible, but attainable. The south shore of Long Island alone could support efficient, ready at hand wind harvest for millions. Factories for the generators, blades, towers could employ thousands. Construction could employ many more. Commitment to massive deployment of roof top/parking lot solar is an 'off the shelf' technology. Gov. Cuomo's support of the Buffulo solar plant is a commendable start. Opponents of many sites have a 19th century aesthetic problem. They don't want turbines on scenic hills and shorelines. With current and promising advances in storage capacity, such as Tesla batteries, the need for massive, expensive plants could be past. Political will is required to couple employment to future sustainable energy security. That the sun and wind and waves could supply the needs of a 21st century society is an achievable, essential goal.
15
Picking favorites is about perceptions of danger and blindness to real value. Danger has been eliminated from nuclear plants. You can't put a value on clean energy. Emissions free power is only practical when it does not need fossil fuels to back it up. Wind and Solar are therefore not emissions free. Neither is natural gas. What? Wind & Solar cause emissions? Yes. When the wind stops blwing and when the sun stops shining... So the real value of nuclear is threefold. Clean, reliable and plentiful. Recognizing how safe they are can only help save the environment and ultimately the planet.
2
Watch what the Chinese and Koreans are doing. For the Chinese, out of necessity. For the South Koreans, for opportunity.
In a market that isn't regulated to bits they can build nuclear at a fraction of the cost in Europe and USA. Politics and the irrational scare (how many have died from nuclear power in the US? coal?) have driven cost so american designed reactors have to be built elsewhere http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR
The spent fuel is not a big problem, much of it will likely be re-used in future reactors. Too valuable to hide underground for long.
So you can be a part of the future or watch it from the sidelines.
In a market that isn't regulated to bits they can build nuclear at a fraction of the cost in Europe and USA. Politics and the irrational scare (how many have died from nuclear power in the US? coal?) have driven cost so american designed reactors have to be built elsewhere http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR
The spent fuel is not a big problem, much of it will likely be re-used in future reactors. Too valuable to hide underground for long.
So you can be a part of the future or watch it from the sidelines.
3
Nuclear plants running at 90% of capacity? Last I knew, 60-70% is more like it. Moniz was careful to say that existing nuclear plants are important for the short term carbon strategy. This is not the picture painted by your headline. And some existing plants should be shutdown due to earthquake risk, high repair costs and other factors.
1
The average capacity factor for US nuclear generating facilities in 2015 was 92.2%.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-...
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-...
2
Your looking at down time for replacement or refurbishment. When they run they run at 90%.
2
First, the tired argument that nuclear "waste" (spent fuel) is some sort of intractable problem is getting old. We have a number of options, and the obstacles are not technical, but political. This problem has been solved, we just need to choose which solution(s) to use.
But let's get to the core -- if you are an environmentalist, and you believe that climate change is a huge issue, like I do, then you would be irresponsible for insisting that the largest zero-carbon source of energy that we have be sidelined. Either CO2 is a problem or it isn't. If it is, then we need all the tools, even with their side effects (and nuclear's are easily manageable). Nuclear power is the ONLY method that has ever been successful in decarbonizing electricity generation at a country level (see Ontario, Sweden, France). Without it, we do not stand a chance of getting ahead of the CO2 curve.
If you are anti-nuclear energy, you are part of the problem.
But let's get to the core -- if you are an environmentalist, and you believe that climate change is a huge issue, like I do, then you would be irresponsible for insisting that the largest zero-carbon source of energy that we have be sidelined. Either CO2 is a problem or it isn't. If it is, then we need all the tools, even with their side effects (and nuclear's are easily manageable). Nuclear power is the ONLY method that has ever been successful in decarbonizing electricity generation at a country level (see Ontario, Sweden, France). Without it, we do not stand a chance of getting ahead of the CO2 curve.
If you are anti-nuclear energy, you are part of the problem.
33
"First, the tired argument that nuclear "waste" (spent fuel) is some sort of intractable problem is getting old."
It may be old but it hasn't been solved. Even assuming it's a political problem, it's a problem that has persisted for 60 years. During this time government around the world has become increasingly dysfunctional, and there's no reason to think we're any closer to a solution. Even countries like France and Japan, which have wholeheartedly embraced nuclear, haven't solved it.
It may be old but it hasn't been solved. Even assuming it's a political problem, it's a problem that has persisted for 60 years. During this time government around the world has become increasingly dysfunctional, and there's no reason to think we're any closer to a solution. Even countries like France and Japan, which have wholeheartedly embraced nuclear, haven't solved it.
5
Yes.
Sweden has already solved the problem. They just store it in rock.
1
Nuclear Power is not low carbon, is not safe and is the most expensive way to boil water known to man.
2014 IPCC figures show Nuclear power having about half the life cycle carbon footprint of the most efficient coal plants. That would hardly qualify as carbon neutral.
2014 IPCC figures show Nuclear power having about half the life cycle carbon footprint of the most efficient coal plants. That would hardly qualify as carbon neutral.
6
Avoiding CO2 emissions is of no value. Fossil fuels do not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies try to pad the record by "adjusting" prior-period temperature data.
Its very simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone.
Climate change cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate.
CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Norwegian researcher Tom Segalstad.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes. The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.
Its very simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone.
Climate change cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate.
CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Norwegian researcher Tom Segalstad.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes. The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.
1
Man adds a significant percent of CO2/GHGS so we are affecting the global equilibrium of carbon sequestration, one clear indicator of which is the acidification of the ocean. The grounding of air traffic for one weekend in Europe when the Icelandic volcano erupted dwarfed the CO2 emissions from the volcano in mitigated emissions. Just 2 days! So, those arguments are quite fallacious.
2
There is a continuing schizophrenia about nuclear power. Optimism about it comes up on a regular basis from certain sectors of people. However, looking at the more complete picture indicates that nuclear is BAD idea on many fronts, known, not yet known, acknowledged and not acknowledged. It is a fantasy to believe that nuclear power is a reasonable solution to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. See Helen Caldicott, Craig Severance Industry reports, Union of Concerned Scientists, nirs.org , and Walter Russell's book "Atomic Suicide?" all of which give loads of reasons as to why nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, will NOT solve global climate concerns, and has dangers and issues besides the more widely known ones. Case in point is that atmospheric nuclear bomb testing is known to destroy upper atmosphere ozone. Current nuclear power plants have regular releases of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. This should be investigated, as there are indications that even oxygen may be in peril from radioactive releases. In addition there are tritium releases into cooling water. This is only a couple of many, many issues. For more information on this and emerging solutions, see ufsolution.wix.com/unifiedfieldsolution . See "resources" page especially concerning nuclear power.
2
I appreciate your comment ... all except for the link to unifiedfieldsolution, which appears to contain junk science: "free energy" from "magnetic pulse" (a.k.a. perpetual motion) machines; cold fusion; and "structured" (a.k.a. "hexagonal") water. All thoroughly debunked.
1
Most of the comments on this article are, predictably, completely lacking in a global perspective on economics and energy. Virtually all forms of energy are subsidized in some fashion. All have environmental consequences. All are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace. Nuclear power does have the advantages of a reliable, secure fuel supply (or at least it did until the Clinton Foundation arranged for 20% of our reserves to be taken over by Russia) and zero CO2 emissions. The problem of spent fuel storage is political, not technological. The devotees of wind and solar power as primary options should think seriously about the cost and environmental impact of getting the power from where it is generated (generally in the middle of nowhere) to where it is needed.
1
Belittling waste disposal as a political problem doesn't make it any easier to solve. We've been trying for over 6 decades.
4
We should use all available non-carbon energy resources to counter climate change, including nuclear. The major drawbacks are plant safety and waste disposal. If nuclear power plant operators could be trusted to spend the money to properly equip, train operators and to run their plants safely, and be willing to pay the even bigger bucks necessary for safe long-term waste disposal, then nuclear would be a very valuable alternative.
The history of privately-owned power utilities has many incidents in it where cost-cutting to maximize profit has made for incidents like Three Mile Island. Such utilities have evaded government controls and run unsafe plants and given us the serious problem of waste disposal we now face. Private ownership in collaboration with sleazily sloppy government regulation has also been a hazard to the health and well-being of the American people.
Even government ownership of such dangerous facilities would not solve the problem if it too was careless. (e.g. Chernobyl) The only answer is to elect men and women to government who do care about the American people. Unfortunately, neither Clinton nor Trump really give a hoot about anyone beyond their families and close friends, if that. This is another reason why someone like Bernie Sanders is so needed.
A government that puts people ahead of profit is the starting point for so much good. Despite all the self-serving media rhetoric, it is still not too late to insist on one.
The history of privately-owned power utilities has many incidents in it where cost-cutting to maximize profit has made for incidents like Three Mile Island. Such utilities have evaded government controls and run unsafe plants and given us the serious problem of waste disposal we now face. Private ownership in collaboration with sleazily sloppy government regulation has also been a hazard to the health and well-being of the American people.
Even government ownership of such dangerous facilities would not solve the problem if it too was careless. (e.g. Chernobyl) The only answer is to elect men and women to government who do care about the American people. Unfortunately, neither Clinton nor Trump really give a hoot about anyone beyond their families and close friends, if that. This is another reason why someone like Bernie Sanders is so needed.
A government that puts people ahead of profit is the starting point for so much good. Despite all the self-serving media rhetoric, it is still not too late to insist on one.
Since 2011, I've been writing about the horrors of Fukushima. The public believes that the 3-4 meltdown explosions and the consequences from those explosions are over. That belief is based on the fact that the media refuses to report on Fukushima. (See no evil, hear no evil). It is by far one of the most censored alarming tragedies in history: a total media blackout. The truth is Japan has been dumping 300 or more tons of radioactive water into the Pacific because they have no way to solve this endless problem. I believe there is a connection between the fish, mammals and crabs that are dying in mass off the West Pacific Coast and the radioactive water. I also believe that the daily dumping of radioactive water has created the "blob" in the pacific that has radically changed the jet-stream, which is accelerated extreme weather conditions in combination with warming oceans from global warming. Essentially, the radioactive water has made global warming a million times worse. There are reports verifying those conclusions--but as far as the mainstream media is concerned: it's a total censorship blackout. I truly wish the NY Times team would send in their experts to investigate Fukushima and the consequences of dumping tons of radioactive water into the Pacific--without end! Japan must stop doing this!
6
Commercial nuclear power plants were built on condition that the US Government assumed full liability in case of an accident, which tells you about the downside and about American Amnesia on subsidies. Indian Point is close to New York City and a nuke planned for Long Island would have been closer (the public nixed it). Diablo Canyon in California is built near a fault.... Nuclear power plants can't be fully decomissioned because the reactor and containment are too heavy to transport and must to stay in place while the core decays - a thousand years or more. We have no storage place for spent fuel rods which sit around in pools near the plants, a nifty source of material for dirty bombs. One military reactor, half the size of a commercial reactor, was transported across the country by barge and it took 18 semis to haul it over the hill to Hanford. Nuclear power plants were meant to last 40 years (radiation eventually damages the construction materials). Now we're talking 80 years. Commercial nukes have a great safety record, the only serious accident in the US was at Three Mile Island, which had a partial meltdown. Nevertheless, one big accident will make the expense of solar and wind look good, and that's an understatement.
Instead of bailing these white elephants out we should invest in research on energy storage (better batteries, melted salt towers, etc) plus infrastructure for the transportation of electricity so solar and wind energy can be used around the clock.
Instead of bailing these white elephants out we should invest in research on energy storage (better batteries, melted salt towers, etc) plus infrastructure for the transportation of electricity so solar and wind energy can be used around the clock.
6
Molten salt nuclear reactors are a different nuclear technology without the problems of conventional nuclear. They can't have catastrophic accidents, burn cheap, widely available thorium, produce only small amounts of low grade, short half-life waste, and can even burn high-grade waste from conventional nuclear. Working prototypes were built in the US in the 60s but shut down by the military, which wanted high grade waste for weapons. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540991/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor...
2
Anyone who supports nuclear energy as low emissions is both short sighted and clueless. When a manufacturer wants to sell a dangerous product it will fund research on an issue that is totally irrelevant to the hazard presented by that product and trumpet the results. The tobacco industry did it all the time.
Nuclear energy and the waste it creates presents hazards which will last centuries. But of course we will look at their emissions to declare them "safe".
Sun, wind and water are the alternative energy sources that we should be pulling out all the stops to exploit but big money isn't interested in that.
Nuclear energy and the waste it creates presents hazards which will last centuries. But of course we will look at their emissions to declare them "safe".
Sun, wind and water are the alternative energy sources that we should be pulling out all the stops to exploit but big money isn't interested in that.
5
Streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants by eliminating the down time workers have to spend waiting for government inspections of the work they are involved in. One highly qualified quality control inspector could verify the acceptability of the various stages of a given project, as opposed to three or four government inspectors, that for the most part, do not know what they are looking at. Granted, my personal experience was in the seventies at nuclear plants being built in NY, NJ, and Pa., but it is very unlikely the government has, or will, modernize their archaic practices.
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
2
THere is a chance that a nuclear power plant may cause harm but it is certain that CO2 will at best seriously harm this planet or at worst (and more probably) destroy life on it. The choice is clear: reduce CO2 emmisions at all costs.
1
Americans by and large are kind people but ignorant people. They are also overworked and burned out. They have no time for science. Hence this global catastrophe in the making. As long as Antarctica and Greenland don't melt in my lifetime, then who cares! Nuclear energy is necessary. It's less of a threat to mankind than the thousands of nuclear bombs all over the world. The chance of us being killed by a nuclear warhead is much greater than from a nuclear power plant accident. But people are just too stupid to recognize that.
1
One of the great environmental disasters of the past fifty years was inflicted directly by cowardly politicians - in particular Mario Cuomo. The shuttering of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island - a completed and operational plant - was a cave in to a small group of agitators.
Instead of clean power LILCO - the responsible utility - was forced to burn an additional million gallons of oil each day to compensate for the loss of Shoreham. Once the nation - skilled in nuclear technology - had the opportunity to address and preclude environment destruction with nuclear energy. Now - it's too late. No company in the US knows how to construct a new plant. Nor does the nation have the industrial or engineering capacity to build a major plant.
This fact has been born out in the only construction of any US nuclear plants here in South Carolina. The containment vessels - an essential component - a specialized steel item was built in China and shipped to the US. The two plants on the Savahnah River are experiencing huge cost overruns and delays - and charges to the consumers in a pass along. In this country nuclear energy is not only long gone - it's totally dead.
Instead of clean power LILCO - the responsible utility - was forced to burn an additional million gallons of oil each day to compensate for the loss of Shoreham. Once the nation - skilled in nuclear technology - had the opportunity to address and preclude environment destruction with nuclear energy. Now - it's too late. No company in the US knows how to construct a new plant. Nor does the nation have the industrial or engineering capacity to build a major plant.
This fact has been born out in the only construction of any US nuclear plants here in South Carolina. The containment vessels - an essential component - a specialized steel item was built in China and shipped to the US. The two plants on the Savahnah River are experiencing huge cost overruns and delays - and charges to the consumers in a pass along. In this country nuclear energy is not only long gone - it's totally dead.
1
Pilgrim in Massachusetts is also a disaster waiting to happen. It is the same design as Fukushima, sits at sea level with rising ocean levels, and is a frightening mix of hurricane tides, bad maintenance, constant staff firings, no industrial power backup, failing pumps, failing water outflow pipes, and a management "running" it from New Orleans. At Pilgrim, about 3,000 spent fuel rods now sit in a pool of water designed more than 40 years ago to hold only one-third that amount.
If it goes, the radiation would encompass Boston and Cambridge with the hospitals, education institutions, scientific research and high tech firms. There is a poorly (none) thought out evacuation for the metro and none for the 200,000 permanent residents of the Cape whose bridges are effectively next to the plant.
The real issue is we cannot manage nuclear well and safely.
If it goes, the radiation would encompass Boston and Cambridge with the hospitals, education institutions, scientific research and high tech firms. There is a poorly (none) thought out evacuation for the metro and none for the 200,000 permanent residents of the Cape whose bridges are effectively next to the plant.
The real issue is we cannot manage nuclear well and safely.
6
Oh, my, are you kidding? In this day and age, writing an apologist column to the filthy Nuclear Industry?? Give me a break. I have never met an environmentalist who was pro-nuclear. Start over by writing about wind, solar, and water turbine power sources. Look at Germany! We can do this, people, we do NOT need more nuclear energy sources on this planet. We just need the nuclear source which is above us - THE SUN.
7
Germany still buys much power from all nuclear France. Did you ever look at the size batteries you need and how dangerous they are to store the solar and wind power? A catastrophe in the making. Non -nuclear is now a religion and we all know how that goes.
2
With the US population doubling within my lifetime, with no slowing down in sight, such deadly dangerous alternatives like nuclear power plants will increasingly look attractive to a lot of people. We know where this will lead--we have plenty of evidence--but humanity is hell bent on it own destruction.
Imagine Fukushima taking place in New England (Seabrook), or New York (Indian Point), and you begin to get a sense of what such a catastrophe would entail. A Seabrook disaster would make the densely populated New England coast uninhabitable, including metropolitan Boston, and one shudders to think of the unimaginable tragedy of an Indian Point disaster.
The willingness to accept such a risk is a reflection of the state that humanity finds itself today. Fukushima was not a "perfect storm" in that it was unique, and that one can report on the "growing support" for nuclear even after such a disaster betrays our desperation. Whitewashing nuclear plants as "clean energy" is nothing more than Trump-like hyperbole, it's like Stalin telling us the gulags are really only holiday camps.
Imagine Fukushima taking place in New England (Seabrook), or New York (Indian Point), and you begin to get a sense of what such a catastrophe would entail. A Seabrook disaster would make the densely populated New England coast uninhabitable, including metropolitan Boston, and one shudders to think of the unimaginable tragedy of an Indian Point disaster.
The willingness to accept such a risk is a reflection of the state that humanity finds itself today. Fukushima was not a "perfect storm" in that it was unique, and that one can report on the "growing support" for nuclear even after such a disaster betrays our desperation. Whitewashing nuclear plants as "clean energy" is nothing more than Trump-like hyperbole, it's like Stalin telling us the gulags are really only holiday camps.
3
Nuclear power and the word clean do not belong in the same sentence together. The waste problem is huge and remains the world's ostrich.
And there is the undiscussed problem of Krypton 85 gas. According to scientists in the Ukrainian it was going to threaten all life on earth by 2020 and that was before Fukushima increased its output by fourteen thousand percent.
And there is the undiscussed problem of Krypton 85 gas. According to scientists in the Ukrainian it was going to threaten all life on earth by 2020 and that was before Fukushima increased its output by fourteen thousand percent.
5
Dear Ms. Cardwell, your are mistaken in your statement, "Support for plans to save nuclear energy has come from a seemingly unlikely group — environmentalists, some who have come to believe that the climate benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the risks." Your use of the term "environmentalists" as a plural is supported by only one informant you mention in your article. Further, Michael Shellenberger may call himself an environmentalist but his organization's promotion of nuclear power at the expense of more cost-effective renewable energy resources may do more harm than good. When nuclear power is presented as a savior against climate change without any reference whatsoever to the long-term storage of radioactive wastes, the true agenda of the discussion cannot be concealed. This is sloppy journalism at best, and weak gruel dished out once again for the unsuspecting public.
3
It is not correct characterize nuclear power as carbon free. It is not. Yes, the process of generating electricity from nuclear materials is, but the process of mining the ore used to make fuel rods, the process of refining that ore, and especially the process of building the nuclear plant itself, are all heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels. This must be taken into account when considering nuclear power as a viable component of the US energy mix. But, as mentioned, the biggest issue is storage of the spent fuel rods, and the eventual disposal of them, which has not been defined after all the years of knowing about it. The result is a massive stockpile of incredibly dangerous nuclear material just waiting to have a string of disasters which cannot be recovered from. This one issue is enough to rule out nuclear power entirely. The urgency to move to renewables cannot be more clear.
6
And just how are the plants which produce your "renewables" built? Did you wave your magic wand and the solar panels appear, on site and ready to install? Did the dam fairies build your hydroelectric plant overnight with their dam magic? Did your windmills spring full grown, like Minerva, from the forehead of Zeus?
As to the spent fuel rods, the reason they are dangerous is that there is an incredible amount of energy left in them, which we do no, at present, know how to use. At some point in the future, those who seal up or destroy these energy sources may be roundly condemned, when the technology is developed to use the energy stored therein.
As to the spent fuel rods, the reason they are dangerous is that there is an incredible amount of energy left in them, which we do no, at present, know how to use. At some point in the future, those who seal up or destroy these energy sources may be roundly condemned, when the technology is developed to use the energy stored therein.
4
While all energy production involves some emissions and harmful byproducts, nuclear power is by far the worst. It produces ultra hazardous radioactive waste products that will be with us for many hundreds of years -- not to mention that it poses a serious danger as a weapon in war or acts of terrorism. It is not a "clean" energy source and never has been. It is high time that we taxpayers invest more in sustainable, cleaner and safer energy alternatives. We need to stop subsidizing nuclear power and stop listening to pseudo-environmentalists.
5
How about making our current electricity distribution system more efficient?
As things now stand the electricity producers lose 60% of their product in the process of delivering their product to their customers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/realestate/commercial/25cogen.html?scp...
(Please see the seventh paragraph)
How do the electricity producers get away with this?
They don't care. Because they are monopolies they are regulated public utilities whose profits are guaranteed by law. There is no incentive to get efficient.
Imagine that Ford had to junk 6 of 10 cars that it produces or that The Times had to trash six of every ten papers that it prints.
It's scandalous what these utilities are getting away with!
As things now stand the electricity producers lose 60% of their product in the process of delivering their product to their customers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/realestate/commercial/25cogen.html?scp...
(Please see the seventh paragraph)
How do the electricity producers get away with this?
They don't care. Because they are monopolies they are regulated public utilities whose profits are guaranteed by law. There is no incentive to get efficient.
Imagine that Ford had to junk 6 of 10 cars that it produces or that The Times had to trash six of every ten papers that it prints.
It's scandalous what these utilities are getting away with!
3
“We get no recognition for the fact that we emit nothing.” True, until something goes wrong and high energy atomic particles begin shooting in every direction. That's not to say nuclear plants are not pretty safe, but the simple fact that you have to use the modifier "pretty" says way too much about plants that cost a gazillion dollars to build and additional gazillions of dollars over their lifetimes to maintain. I believe we, that American people, who will reap the positive benefits and, should something go wrong, the consequences of nukes need to be shown that nuclear power is safe and inexpensive. Especially safe.
1
Like any industry, the nuclear energy industry is 'pretty' safe. Ask the residents of Johnstown just how absolutely safe dams are, for example. In the US, nuclear plants have one of the best safety records of any industry.
This cannot be argued with-
Turn the heat down and the air conditioning up. It is unnecessary to keep our indoor spaces so cold in the summer and warm in the winter. Think about it. Humans have survived thousands of years without these modern sources of heating and cooling. Everything adds up. So why not try 72 or 73 degrees on the ac (instead of the 68 I see in may hotel rooms for example), or 68 in the winter. Such modest changes with big results. And most importantly our consciousness around this issue will shift.
Turn the heat down and the air conditioning up. It is unnecessary to keep our indoor spaces so cold in the summer and warm in the winter. Think about it. Humans have survived thousands of years without these modern sources of heating and cooling. Everything adds up. So why not try 72 or 73 degrees on the ac (instead of the 68 I see in may hotel rooms for example), or 68 in the winter. Such modest changes with big results. And most importantly our consciousness around this issue will shift.
1
All spent waste at US nuclear power plants is stored in cooling pools on-site just like at Fukushima, with all the associated hazards. The problem with nuclear power is that the costs are not known because the waste problem has never been addressed. It is impossible to overstate the difficulty of the waste problem. The proposed solution is to melt the used fuel pellets with glass, making a vitreous solid, and then encapsulate these large radioactive glass plugs inside radiation resistant containers that need to last for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. As a materials scientist who worked on these problems at one of the weapons laboratories, I can say with some experience that the complex corrosion mechanisms under radiation and unknowable environmental conditions over hundreds or thousands of years are nearly impossible to anticipate. Without knowing these costs, and a having a viable waste solution, it is simply too dangerous and too expensive to continue generating more waste. If the waste problem is ever solved it will most likely be a large federal 'bailout' effort paid for by the taxpayers, resulting in an obscenely large actual cost for the electricity produced by nuclear plants.
18
You say "all the associated hazards" without specifying. You make a number of false and unverified comments. There are no associated hazards with cooling pools.
"In the magnitude 9 earthquake which struck the Fukushima nuclear plants in March 2011, three of the spent fuel pools were in buildings that lost the roof and were seen to be emitting water vapor. The US NRC wrongly stated that the pool at reactor 4 had boiled dry[6] — this was denied at the time by the Japanese and found to be incorrect in subsequent inspection and data examination.[7]
According to nuclear plant safety specialists, the chances of criticality in a spent fuel pool are very small, usually avoided by the dispersal of the fuel assemblies, inclusion of a neutron absorber in the storage racks and overall by the fact that the spent fuel has too low an enrichment level to self-sustain a fission reaction. They also state that if the water covering the spent fuel evaporates, there is no element to enable a chain reaction by moderating neutrons.[8][9][10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
You mention one form of preparing nuclear waste but the best outcome to so called "nuclear waste" is to reuse it in nuclear reactors as fuel and that will happen within a decade. This uses up most of the remaining fuel. The remaining waste becomes much smaller and much shoter decay periods.
"In the magnitude 9 earthquake which struck the Fukushima nuclear plants in March 2011, three of the spent fuel pools were in buildings that lost the roof and were seen to be emitting water vapor. The US NRC wrongly stated that the pool at reactor 4 had boiled dry[6] — this was denied at the time by the Japanese and found to be incorrect in subsequent inspection and data examination.[7]
According to nuclear plant safety specialists, the chances of criticality in a spent fuel pool are very small, usually avoided by the dispersal of the fuel assemblies, inclusion of a neutron absorber in the storage racks and overall by the fact that the spent fuel has too low an enrichment level to self-sustain a fission reaction. They also state that if the water covering the spent fuel evaporates, there is no element to enable a chain reaction by moderating neutrons.[8][9][10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool
You mention one form of preparing nuclear waste but the best outcome to so called "nuclear waste" is to reuse it in nuclear reactors as fuel and that will happen within a decade. This uses up most of the remaining fuel. The remaining waste becomes much smaller and much shoter decay periods.
1
The article states growing environmental support, but only refers to Schallenberger, a long-time advocate of nuclear power who is the go-to environmentalist turned pro-nuclear for reporters these days. Schallenberger says a life-cycle analysis shows nuclear is better. No evidence is provided. Hard to believe given uranium miners who have suffered cancer from the radium in the mines of New Mexico, and the nuclear tailings and contamination across the southwest from the uranium mills, not to mention the still unsolved waste problems after fuel rods are used at the plants. The costs of nuclear power plants are the main reason they are being phased out. Better to spend the money on solar and energy efficiency in our buildings and housing.
5
Please check out the Wikipedia page for life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for different sources of electrical power. Click through the reference links to look at the source documents. Nuclear compares very well to other low-carbon generation, and far better than fossil fuel generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
1
There is a list of pro nuclear power environmentalists at Wikipedia. It includes George Monbiot, James Lovelock, Stewart Brand, and many others. There is growing recognition of the role that nuclear power plays in fighting climate change and growing support for its continued and expanded use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pro-nuclear_environmentalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pro-nuclear_environmentalists
3
Your Wikipedia source includes as "environmentalists" who support nuclear power Bjørn Lomborg. Wikipedia states that Lomborg opposed the Kyoto protocol and other efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the short run and notes that Lomborg stated, "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat." I urge readers to check out the others listed.
1
Operating old nuclear power plants is the height of stupidity. These plants were designed for 30- to 40-year lifetimes. Their operating lifetimes have been extended to 60 years in some cases. Even a careful inspection of every accessible piece of a plant doesn't make it new again. (When an airplane reaches its design limit for flight hours, they don't just inspect it carefully and send it back into service.) What's more, engineering has improved since these plants were designed and built in the 60's and 70's, and better, safer plants could be built. A central lesson of Fukushima is that old nuclear plants aren't that safe. For example, much more robust systems for emergency cooling are available now than were available earlier. Nevertheless, several reactors of the same type as Fukushima's (GE BWR Mark I) continue to run in the US. If we're going to have nuclear power (and I think that we shouldn't), we should at least have modern plants.
6
The plants were licensed for 40 years because when they were built there wasn't enough experience to know how long their operational lives could be. The standard of construction required for nuclear plants is such that most can continue to function for 60 or 80 years. The NRC now requires a thorough assessment of materials in plants filing for relicensing, so there is close attention being paid to the aging of the facilities and the refurbishment required to keep them in operation. It would be great if we could systematically replace aging plants with new, advanced reactors, but in the meantime lets keep them running and pay close attention to their safety.
1
There are only two sources of power currently available that can replace fossil fuels: Nuclear power and harnessing the tides.
Nothing else is sufficiently reliable, and of sufficient magnitude, to replace fossil fuels.
Nothing else is sufficiently reliable, and of sufficient magnitude, to replace fossil fuels.
5
Having now completed my physics major, I am conviced that the only people against nuclear energy are those who have never taker higher sciences.
People need to understand that there is NO current way to produce the energy we require with other clean energy methods. If France can operate 58 nuclear power plants on their relatively small land mass, than we can do a lot more.
In regards to nuclear waste, we are currently producing 10,000 cubic meters per year. That is roughly the size of an olympic swimming pool which. We can easily contain it. Compare that to the current 300 million tonnes of toxic waste we produce each year through other the fashion industry and other forms of energy.
Nuclear energy is the only way forward.
People need to understand that there is NO current way to produce the energy we require with other clean energy methods. If France can operate 58 nuclear power plants on their relatively small land mass, than we can do a lot more.
In regards to nuclear waste, we are currently producing 10,000 cubic meters per year. That is roughly the size of an olympic swimming pool which. We can easily contain it. Compare that to the current 300 million tonnes of toxic waste we produce each year through other the fashion industry and other forms of energy.
Nuclear energy is the only way forward.
10
I got my physics degree 45 years ago. Since then there has been zero progress in dealing with the waste issue. There have been three very serious reactor melt downs, one of which continues to leak radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean. There has been a rise in worldwide terrorism, so that there are plenty of people who would love to get their hands on nuclear materials, even waste, to build a dirty bomb. The ability of government to deal with these problems had diminished with the rise of dysfunctional government around the world. There are alternatives, the most important of which is to use less energy.
13
Good lord. The only thing stopping nuclear proliferation in the industrialized world is voluntary agreement by these countries. No one is saying that Afganistan should go nuclear.
Furthermore, Fukushima has been utterly inconsequential from a public health perspective. More radioactive material was probably dispersed by Mt. St. Helens than Fukushima.
And the waste problem is so so inconsequential when compared with the waste problems of a clean or carbon economy. You could literally have a 1 square mile protected area with a repository and solve all our problems. These plants make so little waste they can literally keep it on site for decades!
It's not politically feasible to dramatically reduce energy consumption.
Read this chapter by Cambridge Physics Professor David McKay (who on his deathbed advocated nuclear energy)
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-po...
Furthermore, Fukushima has been utterly inconsequential from a public health perspective. More radioactive material was probably dispersed by Mt. St. Helens than Fukushima.
And the waste problem is so so inconsequential when compared with the waste problems of a clean or carbon economy. You could literally have a 1 square mile protected area with a repository and solve all our problems. These plants make so little waste they can literally keep it on site for decades!
It's not politically feasible to dramatically reduce energy consumption.
Read this chapter by Cambridge Physics Professor David McKay (who on his deathbed advocated nuclear energy)
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-po...
2
The article seems to imply that nuclear power receives no subsidies. That's false. The main reason that no new nuclear power plants have been built in the US for decades is that they're uneconomical. The Obama Administration provided $8.3B in loan guarantees for construction of two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. (In the 80's, the Washington Public Power Supply System defaulted on its bonds while failing to complete construction of two nuclear power plants.) In addition, the federal government indemnifies the nuclear industry against losses in excess of $12.6B, as provided by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. (For reference, Fukushima has so far cost about $60B in liability, not cleanup.) Without this indemnity against large losses, no utility could acquire or afford the insurance premiums for a nuclear power plant.
10
A nuclear power system for a Navy ship cost approx. $100 million. Wake up we can do this technologically. It only requires the public will.
2
Estimates of the value of any liability limitation subsidy are on the order of ~0.2 cents/kW-hr. The direct subsidies that renewables get, and the free pollution subsidy that fossil generation gets, are orders of magnitude larger.
Even the subsidies that were given to a few new nuclear plants are smaller than those given to all renewables projects. If renewables are as economical as their boosters say they are, they should need such subsidies (or outright mandates for their use).
Even the subsidies that were given to a few new nuclear plants are smaller than those given to all renewables projects. If renewables are as economical as their boosters say they are, they should need such subsidies (or outright mandates for their use).
In general, most articles on energy and climate are biased and lacking because, as one commenter expresses it, this is a complex issue with no simple answer.
One factor, though, cries out for better analysis in 99% of these articles: critical and fact-based complete life cycle analysis combined with sober risk analysis for each form of energy production. For example, how does mining for fossil fuel, fissionable uranium and rare earth metals compare for combustible, nuclear and renewable energy production, respectively, with respect to environmental impact and risk?? What about waste disposal and decommissioning for each production method??
I'm convinced most readers (laymen) and authors (laymen & professioals) with firmly established predilictions and opinions regarding energy production and climate would be shocked if presented with thorough life-cycle analyses.
Once the foundation for rational decisions regarding energy production methods were laid , one could then debate the merits of these production forms with respect to values, e.g., whether wind turbines or nuclear power plant cooling towers are more beautiful to look at in the landscape....
And, by the way, there is also another part of the energy equation ignored by most of the articles written by people with axes to grind for one or another energy production form: energy use. The majority of these articles simply ignore energy conservation - probably the most effective way to address climate change...
One factor, though, cries out for better analysis in 99% of these articles: critical and fact-based complete life cycle analysis combined with sober risk analysis for each form of energy production. For example, how does mining for fossil fuel, fissionable uranium and rare earth metals compare for combustible, nuclear and renewable energy production, respectively, with respect to environmental impact and risk?? What about waste disposal and decommissioning for each production method??
I'm convinced most readers (laymen) and authors (laymen & professioals) with firmly established predilictions and opinions regarding energy production and climate would be shocked if presented with thorough life-cycle analyses.
Once the foundation for rational decisions regarding energy production methods were laid , one could then debate the merits of these production forms with respect to values, e.g., whether wind turbines or nuclear power plant cooling towers are more beautiful to look at in the landscape....
And, by the way, there is also another part of the energy equation ignored by most of the articles written by people with axes to grind for one or another energy production form: energy use. The majority of these articles simply ignore energy conservation - probably the most effective way to address climate change...
6
Readers can get a decent introduction to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of different sources of electrical power at the Wikipedia page for the topic. Nuclear power generally compares well to other low-carbon generating technologies and performs far better than fossil fuel generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
Conservation and energy efficiency are absolute winners in terms of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. But they don't offer a lot to many regions of the world that experience energy poverty. Countries need power to develop and the world needs that power to be clean. That's why more and more developing countries are looking to nuclear as a potential source. Ghana is the most recent that I've read about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_ene...
Conservation and energy efficiency are absolute winners in terms of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. But they don't offer a lot to many regions of the world that experience energy poverty. Countries need power to develop and the world needs that power to be clean. That's why more and more developing countries are looking to nuclear as a potential source. Ghana is the most recent that I've read about.
1
As a scientist who has worked in LCA, it is a great tool, even though there are controversies in how the analysis may be carried out.
Let's eliminate tax breaks for burning xarbon and lifting / mining it from the ground.
Lets commission Yucca Mountain repository !
Let's eliminate tax breaks for burning xarbon and lifting / mining it from the ground.
Lets commission Yucca Mountain repository !
There have been many objective, scientific studies that quantify the overall "external" (public health and environmental) impacts of various electricity sources. These studies account for all parts of the generation process (some of which you list). One of the largest studies, by the European Commission, is the ExternE project.
http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/
Virtually all of these studies conclude that coal and oil are by far the worst. Gas is significantly better. Nuclear is better than gas, and only slightly worse than renewable sources.
http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/
Virtually all of these studies conclude that coal and oil are by far the worst. Gas is significantly better. Nuclear is better than gas, and only slightly worse than renewable sources.
After reading many of these comments, it seems one thing is for sure. We need the best qualified nuclear engineers, to run these "things". And to be able to shut them down normally and in an emergency. Use the past hidious catstrophies, Chernoble, and Pennsylvania, and Japan, and Learn from them!
If these materials can be enriched, can they not be "reversed"? And was there not a Chinese engineer that said the old fuel rods can be used in a different type of reator. I think he worked around Chicago? Well, don't ask me, I'm just an average bloke. Nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, Hydro-electric, and conservation. All of the above, perhaps. But one more thing, don't let disasters happen if they can be Prevented! caio
If these materials can be enriched, can they not be "reversed"? And was there not a Chinese engineer that said the old fuel rods can be used in a different type of reator. I think he worked around Chicago? Well, don't ask me, I'm just an average bloke. Nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, Hydro-electric, and conservation. All of the above, perhaps. But one more thing, don't let disasters happen if they can be Prevented! caio
2
Like to correct my earlier comment: Indian Point uses 2.5 billion, not million, gallons of water per day to cool the fuel rods. NYC no longer needs its power and only calls on nuclear at peak overload periods. Most of its output is contracted upstate. Could be replaced easily by offshore wind.
4
You're quite wrong about where the power from Indian Point goes. Much of the power is supplied for NYC consumption on contract, so is specifically earmarked for the city. The region including Indian Point and NYC is transmission constrained so very little power goes upstate, and there's very little opportunity to bring power downstate from above the Mid-Hudson region. The peak power for the region is provided by mainly natural gas fired generation and nuclear power for Indian Point provides the base load. In the late evening and overnight IPEC is providing nearly all the power required for the entire region. And that 2.5 billion gallons of water doesn't disappear. It goes back to the Hudson, just as it does with the Danskammer natural gas plant and other thermal power plants that use river water for cooling.
4
Are you unplugging your iPhone? Subways run on electricity, even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing! Then what? Nuclear, nat gas or coal!
The difficulty is not the aging fleet of reactors, but the longevity of spent nuclear fuel, unless of course you want some of that long lived stuff to process into nuclear warheads.
I understand there can be reasonable arguments about how to phase out nuclear power and how long a phase out should take, but advocates of nuclear power as an end game for clean power should be sentenced to live for several years in the underground facility at Yucca Flats.
I understand there can be reasonable arguments about how to phase out nuclear power and how long a phase out should take, but advocates of nuclear power as an end game for clean power should be sentenced to live for several years in the underground facility at Yucca Flats.
5
“We get no recognition for the fact that we emit nothing,” said Marvin S. Fertel, chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group.
When you figure out how to safely dispose offer render harmless the nuclear waste stockpiled at every facility then you "emit nothing." Right now there are cesspools of exceptionally dangerous materials languishing at every nuclear facility.
When you figure out how to safely dispose offer render harmless the nuclear waste stockpiled at every facility then you "emit nothing." Right now there are cesspools of exceptionally dangerous materials languishing at every nuclear facility.
11
This particular issue has been addressed about 25 times already in these comments. The spent fuel issue has many potential solutions. It only requires the correct combination of economics and political decision making. And the spent fuel storage locations are hardly "cess pits". About 100 miles from where I grew up is the site of a decommissioned nuclear power plant, including eight dry casks for the spent fuel. The State of Michigan is considering turning the site into a state park even though the spent fuel will remain there. It poses no threat to people of the environment.
2
Have the solar and wind industries figured out a way to "safely" dispose of or render harmless the toxic elements used in their manufacture (rare earths, arsenic, etc..)? Note that those toxic elements remain so forever, whereas nuclear waste decays away exponentially.
Unlike other (mainly fossil) electricity sources, nuclear does not emit its wastes/toxins into the environment. As a result, its wastes (and nuclear power overall) is not having any public health impact, whereas fossil generation's impacts are horrendous, even if one doesn't count global warming. It is also paying for the management and disposal of the wastes, to the most impeccable standards ever applied to any waste stream. In other words, unlike other power sources, its waste stream will not inflict any harm over the very long term either.
There is simply no significant external cost associated with nuclear waste. Nuclear deserves to get (financial) credit for being a clean energy source, just like renewables do.
Unlike other (mainly fossil) electricity sources, nuclear does not emit its wastes/toxins into the environment. As a result, its wastes (and nuclear power overall) is not having any public health impact, whereas fossil generation's impacts are horrendous, even if one doesn't count global warming. It is also paying for the management and disposal of the wastes, to the most impeccable standards ever applied to any waste stream. In other words, unlike other power sources, its waste stream will not inflict any harm over the very long term either.
There is simply no significant external cost associated with nuclear waste. Nuclear deserves to get (financial) credit for being a clean energy source, just like renewables do.
2
Michigan? That's the same state that said Flint's water was safe, right? I am under the impression that spent fuel must remain in cooling pools. And that the casks are by no means impenetrable. I live 9.8 air miles from Indian Point. There are tens of millions of people within 100 miles. At a plant that wasn't supposed to operate this long. Safe?
2
Clean energy? I guess if you don't look at what it takes to a) build a plant b) ignore the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel c) decommissioning of the plant, radioactive concrete structures and d) storage of the waste for thousands of years. Does anyone else know what was going on thousands of years ago? Why do we think we'll be able to pass on this information to the potential inheritors of this planet and why they wouldn't damn us for creating this poison. Don't forget we have no idea how to store this waste. I grew up close to a plant that is now going to be decommissioned, San Onofre. The customers paid for it to be built, the utilities charged for the electricity it generated, the executives got bonuses and when things went south the customers got stuck with the tab again.
On top of all that there is there risk that something could go wrong, natural disaster, terrorism etc. and the entire area will be laid to waste for generations. Of course if "nothing goes wrong" there still isn't a good plan for what to do with the waste.
On top of all that there is there risk that something could go wrong, natural disaster, terrorism etc. and the entire area will be laid to waste for generations. Of course if "nothing goes wrong" there still isn't a good plan for what to do with the waste.
11
Per kw/h, the materials needed to build a nuclear plant are small compared to wind turbines and solar panels. As for mining, again, the amount of mining for uranium is small compared to mining of rare earth metals for wind turbines and solar panels. It is odd how people see these issues only when not talking about solar and wind.
There are many toxins produced from mining rare earth metals for wind and solar as well from the manufacturing process. These toxins have no half life. They are around for good.
We know that deep geologic disposal will not be a problem for future generations; after all, we've been able to study the fission products of the natural fission reactors at Gabon. The fission products have moved very little in the last 1.7 billion years.
Well over 400 civilian nuclear power reactors have been running around the globe for much of the past 50 years. During that time, less than 100 people have died from nuclear power accidents. (See UNSCEAR report and not junk on internet.) Meanwhile, some 3 million die prematurely every year due to fossil fuel burning.
Finally, we need not bury the waste. Used in Generation IV reactors, the waste can provide us with all the electricity we need for decades, leaving behind waste that is radioactive for only 300 years or so.
Please get your facts straight.
There are many toxins produced from mining rare earth metals for wind and solar as well from the manufacturing process. These toxins have no half life. They are around for good.
We know that deep geologic disposal will not be a problem for future generations; after all, we've been able to study the fission products of the natural fission reactors at Gabon. The fission products have moved very little in the last 1.7 billion years.
Well over 400 civilian nuclear power reactors have been running around the globe for much of the past 50 years. During that time, less than 100 people have died from nuclear power accidents. (See UNSCEAR report and not junk on internet.) Meanwhile, some 3 million die prematurely every year due to fossil fuel burning.
Finally, we need not bury the waste. Used in Generation IV reactors, the waste can provide us with all the electricity we need for decades, leaving behind waste that is radioactive for only 300 years or so.
Please get your facts straight.
2
Ugh. Out of 37 comments so far, 35 have been nyah-nyah-nyah safe/not safe.
No wonder we never move forward in this country. No adults.
If CO2 is *not* an urgent problem, then building or keeping open uneconomical NPP makes no sense. There is no argument about that.
If CO2 *is* an urgent problem, then NPP alone will make little difference given the time required to build them. Other methods of reduction like carbon tax and conservation and rapid installation of rooftop solar and vehicle fleet electrification must be rapidly implemented.
So this is a pointless, stupid argument. Clearly, neither side is interested in solving the climate problem.
No wonder we never move forward in this country. No adults.
If CO2 is *not* an urgent problem, then building or keeping open uneconomical NPP makes no sense. There is no argument about that.
If CO2 *is* an urgent problem, then NPP alone will make little difference given the time required to build them. Other methods of reduction like carbon tax and conservation and rapid installation of rooftop solar and vehicle fleet electrification must be rapidly implemented.
So this is a pointless, stupid argument. Clearly, neither side is interested in solving the climate problem.
8
Some scientist are crazy. So you must be too. There is no place safe to put any of the spent material anywhere. You talk about CO2 admissions but ignore that mining of of those mineral would contribute to worse CO 2 admissions and the health of those exposed to it.
But the energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) for solar PV in temperate latitudes may well be less than 1, meaning that it takes more power to manufacture those units than they will produce in their expected lifetime. If that's the case then they do more harm than good.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
1
CO2 is a problem, and a dire one. We need all the low carbon electricity we can get, and we need it now. Thats why closing a nuclear facility is so bad.
Perfect example, in New York, the Fitzpatrick nuclear facility produced more electricity than all the wind Mills in the entire state. Shutting it down will be a huge step backwards for clean energy. And a huge buildout of wind and solar would be great, but if we are also closing nuclear reactors at the same time, emissions will remain high.
And once they are closed they can't just be restarted. Nuclear facilities need to be constantly inspected and checked, once that stops and decommissioning begins, it's nearly impossible to reverse the process.
Perfect example, in New York, the Fitzpatrick nuclear facility produced more electricity than all the wind Mills in the entire state. Shutting it down will be a huge step backwards for clean energy. And a huge buildout of wind and solar would be great, but if we are also closing nuclear reactors at the same time, emissions will remain high.
And once they are closed they can't just be restarted. Nuclear facilities need to be constantly inspected and checked, once that stops and decommissioning begins, it's nearly impossible to reverse the process.
1
After a generation of cost plus economic regulation of utility generation investment, the result was nuclear power plants which produced power at ridiculously high total bus bar costs. It was not uncommon for a single 1100 megawatt plant to cost over $4 billion to construct, and for ratepayers to pay through their electric bills for these economic white elephants. So we adopted a competitive generation market place that discouraged high cost, high risk investments and afforded non utility generators access to the market place.
It worked. These nuclear plants are as dead as dodo birds. This is the result that policy makers intended when electric power generation was opened to competition. Gas fired generation knocks the socks off of nuclear power for cost, risk, and low investment.
Any effort to keep these nuclear dinosaurs going will require subsidies, paid for by the public. Subsidies are money. Money that society would better spend on the best energy investment of all....investments in conservation, efficiency on the customer side of the meter, and and demand reduction.
It worked. These nuclear plants are as dead as dodo birds. This is the result that policy makers intended when electric power generation was opened to competition. Gas fired generation knocks the socks off of nuclear power for cost, risk, and low investment.
Any effort to keep these nuclear dinosaurs going will require subsidies, paid for by the public. Subsidies are money. Money that society would better spend on the best energy investment of all....investments in conservation, efficiency on the customer side of the meter, and and demand reduction.
21
Or a technology neutral carbon tax that reflects that damage done by fossil fuels and benefit provided by nuclear generation. And, despite their utility in developed countries, conservation, energy efficiency and other demand side measures aren't going to lift the vast majority of this planet out of energy poverty. New generation is going to do that which is why more and more developing countries are weighing nuclear generation.
1
Do think conservation and efficiency will be enough? Consumer load is not the only load on the grid. Some industrial loads are on 24/7 (chemical plants, mining operations etc) which require significant energy. Is it possible that in this future of green energy cheap electricity is not possible? Maybe the only way we can achieve a low carbon economy is my having electricity prices closer to 60cents/kWh (just an arbitrary high number) if it is more expensive that might spur demand side management more than consumer volition. Not trying to stir the pot but I personally think nuclear base loads with gas/wind and stored hydro/solar (via some elon musk invention) is the only realistic way to continue meeting the demand that will explode if electric cars really kick off
2
Demand side reduction alone will not replace fossil fuels. We need a rapid expansion of low carbon electricity, and we need to keep the low carbon sources we already have.
That is the reality of climate change. We need to act quickly, we don't have the luxury of closing large low carbon sources.
That is the reality of climate change. We need to act quickly, we don't have the luxury of closing large low carbon sources.
1
While CO2 emitted by nuclear may be less than coal or the methane from gas, it does emit from all the electricity generators entailed and uses a tremendous amount of water, 2.5 million gallons a day gone forever as drinking water. As for Indian Point, overage, leaking tritium into land and the Hudson River, sitting on two fault lines, 25 miles from NYC and 20 million people, it should be closed and not replaced. No evacuation is possible. While nuclear plants away from heavily populated areas might be justifiable, Indian Point is not. Further, Spectra is building a 42" high pressure gas pipeline that is planned to run 105 feet from backup cooling generators and other infrastructure. A rupture could prevent the plant being shutdown before it was too late to prevent radioactive release or meltdown. tghe gas safety turnoff i sin Houston TX. This risk is unacceptable. The major drawback to nuclear it the waste which will contaminate the land for thousands of years, which we so far cannot bury safely. There is more spent fuel at IP than at Fukushima. Don't let anyone sell you on the idea that nuclear is a clean energy.
18
Where on earth is that 2.5 million gallons per day going? It's not like the plant uses cooling towers and it evaporates. It's being run through the plant for cooling and returned to the Hudson River. There are legitimate concerns about thermal pollution, the same as with any thermal power plant that uses river water for cooling, but that water doesn't disappear. And the Spectra pipeline should give you an indication of what will replace Indian Point if it is closed. The region is transmission constrained and has almost no capability to develop renewable power at scale. If Indian Point is closed it will be replaced with shale gas, or possibly even coal from idled plants returned to service.
OK lets just give up our computers, heating and cooling our homes and transportation. There is no perfect energy source.
1
Gone from drinking water? Many plants use seawater for cooling, unless you want to die, you don't drink it. Unless the plants has cooling towers the water that comes in is returned directly where in came from.
Spectra pipeline, might want to get you facts straight on that. The protected area fence, which encloses all safety related equipment necessary for core cooling is over 1500 feet from the pipeline. There are is no equipment within 105 feet of the pipeline that is required for nuclear safety. There may be a switch in Houston, but there are local safety systems and components that will isolate the pipeline without any input from Houston. Might want to consider taking a few courses on pipeline design and safety requirements.
Thousands of years? They bombed 2 cities in Japan 60 years ago, I guess they a re still wastelands to this day? Guess Obama was in another city over the weekend.
Spectra pipeline, might want to get you facts straight on that. The protected area fence, which encloses all safety related equipment necessary for core cooling is over 1500 feet from the pipeline. There are is no equipment within 105 feet of the pipeline that is required for nuclear safety. There may be a switch in Houston, but there are local safety systems and components that will isolate the pipeline without any input from Houston. Might want to consider taking a few courses on pipeline design and safety requirements.
Thousands of years? They bombed 2 cities in Japan 60 years ago, I guess they a re still wastelands to this day? Guess Obama was in another city over the weekend.
1
Nuclear plants are simply disasters waiting to happen. The only reason they are still around is that there are billions of dollars to be made by the nuclear industry. Greed is running the show, not common sense.
How stupid does the nuclear industry think the public is, to claim that "we emit nothing?" You emit spent nuclear fuel which is the most toxic material to human life in existence. This deadly material is stored onsite at every nuclear plant, because the government was unsuccessful in creating a safe mass repository for it. No one knows what else to do with it. In any other industry, such a thing would be considered an unacceptable public safety risk, but the nuclear industry somehow gets a free pass. Bad idea.
Any so-called environmentalist claiming that the climate benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks should have their heads examined. Trading lack of carbon emissions for ever growing amounts of radioactive waste? What a great idea!
In particular, Indian Point should never have been built, let alone tolerated for so long. It represents a real danger to millions, standing as it does on earthquake fault lines that could rupture at any moment, with its long history of safety violations and its current lack of an operating license.
Indian Point, and all other nuclear plants in the United States, should be shut down ASAP. Let's get our energy from sources that are not so ridiculously dangerous as to border on the criminally insane.
How stupid does the nuclear industry think the public is, to claim that "we emit nothing?" You emit spent nuclear fuel which is the most toxic material to human life in existence. This deadly material is stored onsite at every nuclear plant, because the government was unsuccessful in creating a safe mass repository for it. No one knows what else to do with it. In any other industry, such a thing would be considered an unacceptable public safety risk, but the nuclear industry somehow gets a free pass. Bad idea.
Any so-called environmentalist claiming that the climate benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks should have their heads examined. Trading lack of carbon emissions for ever growing amounts of radioactive waste? What a great idea!
In particular, Indian Point should never have been built, let alone tolerated for so long. It represents a real danger to millions, standing as it does on earthquake fault lines that could rupture at any moment, with its long history of safety violations and its current lack of an operating license.
Indian Point, and all other nuclear plants in the United States, should be shut down ASAP. Let's get our energy from sources that are not so ridiculously dangerous as to border on the criminally insane.
43
Nuclear power is the largest source of low-carbon power in the US. If we shut down existing nuclear power plants our greenhouse gas emissions will skyrocket and we can kiss our Paris Accord targets goodbye. I fear the imminent threat of climate change far more than the low probability risk of a radiation leak.
Hypothetically if you had the choice of the possibility of a nuclear disaster with the certainty of the fall out from climate change would you always pick the latter. Droughts, fires, floods mass migration, rising tides, melting ice caps, bleaching of the great barrier reef are all ok compared to the "risk" of a nuclear meltdown? It's a difficult decision for other people. Especially when people refer to a nuclear plant built by the Soviets that cannot be compared to today's technology and a plant that survived a massive earthquake but NOT tsunami that pummeled it minutes later. Wind and solar are intermittent. We cannot store electric energy in massive quantities so the only option is continue as we are now. At best we use gas as our case load which is an emitter as well. OR we accept the risks of nuclear and build them in remote locations with the knowledge that a lot is within our control. If Nevada was the testing ground for all those nukes during the cold war and people from Vegas still have 2 hands and 2 eyes I'm willing to risk nuclear for he CERTAINTY that global emissions will reduce and there is a chance Solomon islands stay afloat. Just me though
4
In what other countries? There are currently 440 operating nuclear plants in the world. What do they do with their pent fuel that is acceptable health risks, that the US is not doing? (Hint: They all store it on site, just like we do, except France which reprocesses it.)
2
If we were willing to use a market oriented solution like a carbon tax to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions we wouldn't have to worry about losing valuable low-carbon nuclear generation. Instead we continue to subsidize fossil fuels while ignoring their pollution and health impacts, and create all manner of Rube Goldberg mechanisms to preferentially support particular technologies. Renewable portfolio standards, production tax credits, rebates and manufacturer subsidies should all be eliminated in favor of a steep, technology neutral carbon tax. Until we are able to do that we should provide nuclear power with the same support we are willing to give far less dependable low-carbon generation.
35
Absolutely!! Couldn't have said it better myself.
An even better idea than a carbon tax is a revenue-neutral fee and dividend, which is supported by climate scientist James Hansen. There is a large and growing grass roots organization called the Citizen's Climate Lobby whose singular goal is getting such a policy passed. Its efforts have resulted in a surprisingly large and growing amount of support for the idea among Republican politicians.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I would encourage you, and any other like-minding people reading this, to consider joining.
An even better idea than a carbon tax is a revenue-neutral fee and dividend, which is supported by climate scientist James Hansen. There is a large and growing grass roots organization called the Citizen's Climate Lobby whose singular goal is getting such a policy passed. Its efforts have resulted in a surprisingly large and growing amount of support for the idea among Republican politicians.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I would encourage you, and any other like-minding people reading this, to consider joining.
this never-ending nonsense of "environmentalists supporting nukes" has worn itself out. the green movement has exploded with the plummeting costs and rising efficiency of renewables. shellenberger and his ilk are like those japanese soldiers who didn't know the war was over.
these aging nukes grow increasingly dangerous every day. and the accidents have gotten inevitably worse. from three mile island to chernobyl to fukushima, the arc is terrifying.
first they said "too cheap to meter" then the said "new generation" and now they're begging for handouts to keep these jalopies running.
what's really at stake is centralized control of the grid. the utility industry knows distributed generation from rooftop solar means the end of its existence. that's what environmentalists really support.
when will the Times finally report that a new age has dawned?
these aging nukes grow increasingly dangerous every day. and the accidents have gotten inevitably worse. from three mile island to chernobyl to fukushima, the arc is terrifying.
first they said "too cheap to meter" then the said "new generation" and now they're begging for handouts to keep these jalopies running.
what's really at stake is centralized control of the grid. the utility industry knows distributed generation from rooftop solar means the end of its existence. that's what environmentalists really support.
when will the Times finally report that a new age has dawned?
13
Handouts? The industry just wants to be given approximately half the credit that is provided to wind and solar for providing about 4 to 5 times the low-carbon capacity. If we had a technology neutral carbon tax that wouldn't even be needed. Instead we have a cobbled together system that favors the least productive technologies above all others. You may bemoan a centralized grid, but I kind of like my electrified commuter rail and subway, two systems that provide huge positive externalities that would likely be unable to function with a decentralized grid and distributed generation. You can keep your new age of energy scarcity and fearmongering. I'm happy to have Indian Point, Millstone and all the other nuclear plants that give the tri-state region a cleaner electricity supply than California even after decades of renewable development.
6
Wasserman always has been, and remains, a common street-corner prophet of nuclear energy doom. All of his carefully-crafted elaboration and hyperbole combined, does not change the reality that nukes are the solution to exacerbation of the climate crisis. Wasserman's vacuous rhetoric hasn't changed in more than 35 years. He refuses to accept that he has been wrong all along, and a new age of rational thought concerning nuclear energy has dawned.
1
Nuclear is hands down the best source of energy for the future. Small footprint, runs 24/7 with zero emissions, and fuel can be reprocessed instead of stored. The safety arguments are well overblown. The cost of nuclear power is drastically increased by excessively onerous regulations in regard to perceived safety. There have been three accidents since the dawn of the nuclear age. Chernobyl was a bad design with poor training. Three mile island was a cascade of failures and a broken valve. Fukishima was literally a perfect storm. Compare that with countless oil spills, gas leaks, refinery issues...the list continues, yet people are afraid of nuclear power. Storage can be solved by reprocessing. Weapons grade fuel can eventually be made, but the risks of catastrophic climate change far outweigh. No feasible study shows a grid with greater than 40% renewables at an acceptable cost. It is time to drop the anti science and get on board with a drastic expansion of nuclear power. All of those solar subsidies could be put to use to actually reduce emissions if directed to nuclear power.
99
> "The safety arguments are well overblown. The cost of nuclear power is drastically increased by excessively onerous regulations in regard to perceived safety"
Stupidest argument imaginable, how does this comment qualify as an NYT-Pick?
But, still
one of the few commenters to praise the intelligent idea of reprocessing our waste
Stupidest argument imaginable, how does this comment qualify as an NYT-Pick?
But, still
one of the few commenters to praise the intelligent idea of reprocessing our waste
The worst thing that has happened in the past decade regarding nuclear power is the Obama administration dropping funding for Fast nuclear reactors. Fast nuclear power plants "burn" plutonium to generate heat. This reduces the radioactivity of plutonium and eliminates the possibility of it being used to make a nuclear bomb.
Today GE and Hitachi are going forward with a research project on their own in Southern England to develop a Fast reactor. GE - Hitachi call this reactor PRISM and they are covering the funding of building this reactor. The UK government will only pay for the reactor if it destroys the viability of the plutonium they have in storage. They have taken in plutonium from conventional reactors located in the USA and Europe.
The German Green Party is forcing Germany to close their nuclear reactors and in Germany they burn soft coal while the only other nation on earth doing so is the Chinese.
Today GE and Hitachi are going forward with a research project on their own in Southern England to develop a Fast reactor. GE - Hitachi call this reactor PRISM and they are covering the funding of building this reactor. The UK government will only pay for the reactor if it destroys the viability of the plutonium they have in storage. They have taken in plutonium from conventional reactors located in the USA and Europe.
The German Green Party is forcing Germany to close their nuclear reactors and in Germany they burn soft coal while the only other nation on earth doing so is the Chinese.
try calculating the cost per accident. You may then find a reason why the industry is regulated like it is...
1
In discussing the future of a nuclear industry, how about an in-depth discussion of different options.
France seems to be two or three generations ahead of the US – particularly in terms of reprocessing its nuclear waste. We accept the fact that we have to bury and contain it, at a huge cost and potential liability. The other unspoken options pertain to different fuels to uranium/plutonium, such as iridium or sodium. I'm certainly no expert, but there are alternatives to what current industry is pushing.
No form of energy is totally cost-free. But in the US, where long-term benefit seems to always take a back seat to short-term shareholder interests, an honest discussion is possible only when all viable options are put forward.
France seems to be two or three generations ahead of the US – particularly in terms of reprocessing its nuclear waste. We accept the fact that we have to bury and contain it, at a huge cost and potential liability. The other unspoken options pertain to different fuels to uranium/plutonium, such as iridium or sodium. I'm certainly no expert, but there are alternatives to what current industry is pushing.
No form of energy is totally cost-free. But in the US, where long-term benefit seems to always take a back seat to short-term shareholder interests, an honest discussion is possible only when all viable options are put forward.
24
China is working on LFTR technology. Hopefully they will succeed.
1
Reprocessing in France is often cited as a good reason for using nuclear, but invariably they fail to add that most of the work for France is done in Russia. Not a great place to rely on environmentally sound work.
1
The safety record for nuclear plants compared to oil and gas is excellent. Yes, Three Mile Island was bad. Fukushima was a simple design flaw; the back up generators were stored below grade, susceptible to flooding. Our plants, unlike European models which are all built to the same specs, a like old Victorian homes, open them up for repair and you never know what you will find. The work force is also aging. It's a small world and the best and most experienced people are now in their late 60's. Academic degrees don't prepare for the high pressure politics of the nuke industry.
13
The oil and gas corporations own the uranium mines. When the oil, gas, coal are exhausted then nuclear energy will become feasible. It's capitalism, the free market and of course greed/stockholders who have the final say.
The U.S. nuclear power fleet is senescent. Nothing can be done to bring it back. New nuclear plants cannot be financed without massive subsidies.
The most serious of many formidable risks is high-level nuclear waste. The U.S. has now dithered with that issue for generations. There are an estimated 75,000 tons of high-level waste stored at active power plants.
This waste is, for the most part, stored in ad hoc ways--poorly contained, poorly maintained and poorly defended. While some new plants continue to be built, it is a travesty to build new plants and to continue to operate existing plants until there is a certain, safe, secure and affordable way to deal with the high level waste.
Reprocessing seems to make more engineering sense, because it reduces the quantity of truly dangerous waste by two orders of magnitude and produces useful nuclear fuel. But reprocessing was defeated two generations ago by hysterical associations of plutonium an nuclear weapons. Then storage was the only option, which was defeated by NV NIMBYs led by Harry Reid.
There's nothing really wrong with nuclear power, but it has multiple constraints. it requires a large capital investment at both the beginning and end of a plant's life. It has Black Swan type risks that are difficult to hedge. Worst of all, its life cycle of 40-60 years exceeds the attention span of our political leaders.
The most serious of many formidable risks is high-level nuclear waste. The U.S. has now dithered with that issue for generations. There are an estimated 75,000 tons of high-level waste stored at active power plants.
This waste is, for the most part, stored in ad hoc ways--poorly contained, poorly maintained and poorly defended. While some new plants continue to be built, it is a travesty to build new plants and to continue to operate existing plants until there is a certain, safe, secure and affordable way to deal with the high level waste.
Reprocessing seems to make more engineering sense, because it reduces the quantity of truly dangerous waste by two orders of magnitude and produces useful nuclear fuel. But reprocessing was defeated two generations ago by hysterical associations of plutonium an nuclear weapons. Then storage was the only option, which was defeated by NV NIMBYs led by Harry Reid.
There's nothing really wrong with nuclear power, but it has multiple constraints. it requires a large capital investment at both the beginning and end of a plant's life. It has Black Swan type risks that are difficult to hedge. Worst of all, its life cycle of 40-60 years exceeds the attention span of our political leaders.
18
The waste is really not an issue at all. It can sit in dry cask storage until the market price of uranium makes it worth reprocessing. Or it can be used in a PRISM reactor, or some other advanced reactor. This is just one more excuse for shying away from a sound and safe technology because of distant associations with the military, ideological objections to corporate control, and an irrational fear of radiation.
30
What subsidies are being used to finance new nuclear in the US. There are 5 plants currently under construction, one of them achieved their first criticality last week. What subsidy (government money) is financing them?
TVA is federally owned, so yes it is funded with government funds.
Vogtle was offered a federal loan guarantee, but is has not been signed yet.
VC Summer has not applied for a loan guarantee.
TVA is federally owned, so yes it is funded with government funds.
Vogtle was offered a federal loan guarantee, but is has not been signed yet.
VC Summer has not applied for a loan guarantee.
Tell that to the neighbors of Fukushima. But the waste isn't in dry cask storage, is it?
When a single molecule of Cs137 or Po 210, or other transuranic elements that don't exist in nature, is enough to cause an ugly and painful death, it somehow seems like a big "issue".
When a single molecule of Cs137 or Po 210, or other transuranic elements that don't exist in nature, is enough to cause an ugly and painful death, it somehow seems like a big "issue".
1
Hop on over to Wikipedia and learn of the under-performance and expense of California's San Onofre plant. Much too long and detailed to list here; but as you might guess, So Cal Edison wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for decommissioning, (the plant is defunct), and cleanup. Decades of profit, and when the bill comes due, run crying to government. Perfect example of the fact that nuclear power is an abject failure.
29
SONGS was shutdown for purely political reasons. It could have down powered to the original power rating (the flow values used in the steam generator replacement calculation) and continued to operate for 20 years. But rather than fight politics, they pulled the plug.
1
What to do about the nuclear WASTE? What about the very real chance of meltdown. I grew up near Millstone in Wateford, CT and the three reactors basically ruined the area for decades. I feel in my bones that something very big and very bad is going to happen there, but the locals, my old neighbors, are too ignorant to understand the dangers. That is why I would never move back to that place. It is a ticking time bomb.
16
What exactly is the problem at Millstone? How did the reactors ruin the area? Are there real dangers and impacts you are reacting to, or are you just reacting to what you've been led to believe by anti-nuclear voices? I feel something in my bones as well. I feel deep gratitude that Millstone exists and that this state is not burdened with coal-fired electricity generation that would pollute this beautiful place and poison the lungs of my young children.
31
"Plasma arc gasification." This is the technology currently in use elsewhere in the world to eliminate garbage and other waste, cleanly. Let's be smart and informed and as a nation put some resources behind this technology to eliminate all nuclear waste. Clean nuclear energy - clean waste disposal. China is building 400 nuclear plants for energy production. What does that tell you? Come on America!
1
The US has practically no deaths attributable to Nuclear Power. If we include Military Naval reactors there are about 200 total in operation. The record of this source of energy is magnificent when compared to any other. And yet we still burn carbon and think that battery stabilized wind and solar are better. How pathetic.
If you do not feel ambivalent about nuclear power you are not thinking and/ or you are paid by one side.
It is the best source of non-carbon pollution available now and for a long time into the future. These plants are reliable and efficient and generally clean. By supporting them you are supporting engineers and middle class professionals in your own community and denying money to petrodictatorships.
They also have the potential to tear apart whole cities if they break or are bombed. Even worse than the vast potential for mayhem is the waste. No one has found a politically acceptable and safe way to store nuclear waste. It essentially last forever and poisons and corrodes everything around it.
It is a conundrum and anyone who gives simple answers is wrong.
It is the best source of non-carbon pollution available now and for a long time into the future. These plants are reliable and efficient and generally clean. By supporting them you are supporting engineers and middle class professionals in your own community and denying money to petrodictatorships.
They also have the potential to tear apart whole cities if they break or are bombed. Even worse than the vast potential for mayhem is the waste. No one has found a politically acceptable and safe way to store nuclear waste. It essentially last forever and poisons and corrodes everything around it.
It is a conundrum and anyone who gives simple answers is wrong.
18
Burning the "spent fuel" of current nuclear plants would supply 100 years of free energy and get rid of most of the waste. We are just not looking at the potential of safe nuclear energy.
The current nuclear plants are not safe - they are first generation 1950 designs. We can do so much better now with plants that literally can't dissolve like Three Mile Island and Fukushima. We know how to do it but are politically paralysed from fear.
Too many of us say we don't believe in global climate change and yet do believe that nuclear power is too dangerous. We need to reverse these ignorant beliefs.
The current nuclear plants are not safe - they are first generation 1950 designs. We can do so much better now with plants that literally can't dissolve like Three Mile Island and Fukushima. We know how to do it but are politically paralysed from fear.
Too many of us say we don't believe in global climate change and yet do believe that nuclear power is too dangerous. We need to reverse these ignorant beliefs.
17
Smokey....are the nuclear submarines cruising the world's oceans safe. Are the missiles in these submarines with their multi-targeted nuclear warheads safe? The probability of you, Smokey, dying from an accidental launch of these missiles is greater that you dying from a nuclear power plant accident. When they eliminate nuclear bombs all over the world only then would I start worrying about the nuclear power plants.
1
I have been hearing about these new design nuclear facilities for decades now. So far there has been a lot of hype but not much product. I am still waiting for a functional new design nuclear plant. Any size, any cost, but functional. That would show it works and can deplete our increasing nuclear waste.
Once we know the theory works we can talk about scale, cost, placement, etc. Until then nuclear waste is nasty, dangerous, and growing.
Once we know the theory works we can talk about scale, cost, placement, etc. Until then nuclear waste is nasty, dangerous, and growing.
2
There is really no currently available, scalable source of zero- or low-emission energy for the USA. The safety issues have been far overstated, even considering Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Nations will surely need to embrace nuclear power in order to bring down greenhouse gas emissions; it's inescapable.
Nations will surely need to embrace nuclear power in order to bring down greenhouse gas emissions; it's inescapable.
51
Exactly.
11
There are currently 440 operating nuclear plants in 30 countries world wide.
An additional 65 are in construction.
Another 173 are in planning
337 are proposed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world...
An additional 65 are in construction.
Another 173 are in planning
337 are proposed.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world...
2
I hope you are wrong, but don't know that you are.
Where is the discussion of nuclear waste in this article? Referring to nuclear energy as "clean" energy is a sick twist of the tale. Millennia of nuclear waste problems come from the very first operation of these systems and after ~50 years of operation no one has yet to propose a workable solution to this problem. Unless and until the waste problem is solved this energy source is not a solution to our environmental problems.
47
There are ready solutions to get rid of most of the waste, produce power for 100 years with it and leave a much smaller, shorter lived waste. Just read about it.
2
The waste "problem" has been solved many times over but no one wants to agree to it. We already have countries, such as France, that reprocess "spent" fuel which would be a reasonable solution, but even ignoring that, 50 years of "spent" fuel will sit on about the space of a football field sitting outside a plant. It is weekly radioactive - so week I have pictures of people standing smiling next to it. The next option is the IFR which was built in the 80's and shut down in the 90's due to under-funding and being blamed as "nuclear pork" - it could have prevented Fukushima and prevented all this discussion about global warming because it would have been a non-issue by now. We also could have been looking at the Gen IV tech by now, which thankfully we have now started on, as have several countries. Gen IV, IFR and other tech all "eat" so-called "spent" fuel. There is a lot of locked up energy in spent fuel that is not released by our current nuclear fleet. New tech will convert "waste" to valuable fuel, so we have nothing to worry about it being around for thousands of years - it will be too valuable for that. The last option is to bury it - which while safe (it doesn't dissolve easily) is a waste of so-called waste. Better to keep it around for future tech like we do now.
26
"Referring to nuclear energy as "clean" energy is a sick twist of the tale."
Oh, I don't know. Are you aware of another energy source that stores all its waste on-site, in thick casks that properly isolate it from its environment? I mean, even solar is having a problem with silicon tetrachlorates being dumped in China. And don't get me started on rare earths tailings from neodymium mining for wind. I mean, new mines for uranium are almost exclusively ISL-based - essentially, cleaning a naturally uranium-contaminated aquifer.
More than anything else, though, waste and risk must exist in a context, and _none_ of these wastes exceed carbon, and none of these risks exceed that of climate change.
Oh, I don't know. Are you aware of another energy source that stores all its waste on-site, in thick casks that properly isolate it from its environment? I mean, even solar is having a problem with silicon tetrachlorates being dumped in China. And don't get me started on rare earths tailings from neodymium mining for wind. I mean, new mines for uranium are almost exclusively ISL-based - essentially, cleaning a naturally uranium-contaminated aquifer.
More than anything else, though, waste and risk must exist in a context, and _none_ of these wastes exceed carbon, and none of these risks exceed that of climate change.
27
People need to realize that nuclear is the ultimate climate solution. It is also the least ecologically damaging source of electricity. It takes tiny amounts of uranium fuel, takes up tiny amounts of space, has a tiny carbon footprint and available all day every day. Rationally, it makes no sense to keep going on with wind and solar when natural gas, nuclear power and hydroelectricity are the only proven means of mass decarbonization. People like the NRDC are out of touch with nuclear. It is time to add anti-nukes to the ranks of anti-vaxxers, creationists, climate-deniers, and anti-GMO folks. The term "radiophobia" is a good nickname. Don't listen to someone who claims to care about climate change while also rejecting nuclear energy, they are lying to you. NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
36
Tiny amounts of fuel? Don't confuse the quantity of highly refined fuel with the tons of ore obtained from large uranium mines. More important, the hazardous nature of the fuel doesn't fit into the word tiny no matter which way you slice it. And please stop with the insulting language!
Seriously, maybe we can just buy our power from France and China. According to radiophobes France must be this radioactive wasteland full of mutated man-eating croissants. Scary invisible magic that destroys all human life? How can it ever be disposed of? Everything is impossible! Please conjure up some electricity from wizards on treadmills instead.
1
There is no credible environmental argument for nuclear power. The waste, safety, and proliferation issues cited in the article are deal breakers for all but a few committed pro-nuclear ideologues, and the excessive and frequently unpredictable costs of new nuclear construction have aborted an interminable succession of promised nuclear "revivals." M. Shellenberger (formerly?) of the "Breakthrough Institute" and "Death of Environmentalism" fame (or infamy) is unambiguously in the pro-nuclear ideological camp and his views are far from representative.
14
Of course their is. Are you claiming the climate scientists are wrong? The waste can and is stored safely, if people would let Yucca Mountain go through. Also, this "waste" is actually fuel to be used up in next-generation reactors, if people would support government grant money in new nuclear technology. There is little evidence to suggest that nuclear power and weapons proliferation are related. You need very special reactors to make weapons-grade material. In fact, nuclear weapons can be built without civilian nuclear power. And perhaps you can look at your home states reactor closure and the switch to natural gas as climate progress, but carbon dioxide does the talking.
18
Of course there is a credible argument. Are you just choosing to ignore what the climate scientists are saying? Waste can be stored safely, if people would let a geological repository exist. Waste can be destroyed forever as new fuel in next-generation reactors, if people would support government grants for nuclear research and development. The is really no evidence to suggest a correlation between nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs. Both use very different technologies. Plus, a country can easily enrich uranium without a nuclear power program. Do you know the reason why nuclear is expensive? Bogus and irregular regulation of the nuclear industry from environmental groups and policymakers that have a financial interest if stopping nuclear. Nuclear power is not expensive around the world, except in the United States. Look at China, France and Russia.
7
"The waste, safety, and proliferation issues cited in the article are deal breakers for all but a few committed pro-nuclear ideologues"
I disagree - because I'm for the use of nuclear largely _because_ of climate change, and I find waste, safety, and nonproliferation to be arguments bereft of substance.
Waste: Coal, oil, and natural gas dump their waste into the air and water (and sometimes, their fuel). In China, solar and wind manufacturers dump their waste into the rivers - and given the short lifetime of wind and solar, and their diffuse nature, "replacing the rare materials in the panels and turbines" constitutes "fuel", in my opinion. Nuclear's waste is isolated from the environment in thick concrete and steel casks. In short, I think nuclear already has a superior solution to waste than other technologies.
Safety: google, "Deaths per TWh", and tell me with a straight face that solar is safer, in a quantifiable sense, than nuclear. This is an industry that has operated for 50 years and had only 3 major accidents - yet, the world ignores the fact that Centralia is _still_ burning, that there's been yet another oil spill last week, and that the recent methane leak in California has undone their last five years of emissions reductions for the next five.
As for proliferation, we're talking about nuclear power in the US: that ship has sailed - and, in fact, was the first - but if you want to get _rid_ of those weapons, I recommend googling for "Megatons to Megawatts".
I disagree - because I'm for the use of nuclear largely _because_ of climate change, and I find waste, safety, and nonproliferation to be arguments bereft of substance.
Waste: Coal, oil, and natural gas dump their waste into the air and water (and sometimes, their fuel). In China, solar and wind manufacturers dump their waste into the rivers - and given the short lifetime of wind and solar, and their diffuse nature, "replacing the rare materials in the panels and turbines" constitutes "fuel", in my opinion. Nuclear's waste is isolated from the environment in thick concrete and steel casks. In short, I think nuclear already has a superior solution to waste than other technologies.
Safety: google, "Deaths per TWh", and tell me with a straight face that solar is safer, in a quantifiable sense, than nuclear. This is an industry that has operated for 50 years and had only 3 major accidents - yet, the world ignores the fact that Centralia is _still_ burning, that there's been yet another oil spill last week, and that the recent methane leak in California has undone their last five years of emissions reductions for the next five.
As for proliferation, we're talking about nuclear power in the US: that ship has sailed - and, in fact, was the first - but if you want to get _rid_ of those weapons, I recommend googling for "Megatons to Megawatts".
14
"We emit nothing" except nuclear waste for a thousand years and nowhere to put it.
43
False, the waste is not emitted. The waste is not that dangerous and is very will stored. Also, you can make it disappear forever in next-generation power plants. Coal and gas emit many, many, many times more radioactive elements than nuclear. Nuclear waste is not hurting anybody, anywhere. Don't worry about it. We should be worried about fossil fuel pollution and climate change. Chill out.
21
Just run it through a CANDU. They can run on light water reactor's spent fuel and greatly reduce the volume. Or better yet, just let it sit safely in dry cask storage until the price of uranium rises. Reprocessing will be the ultimate solution, and the only impediments are political and economic.
9
Spent nuclear fuel is not "emitted"; it's stored in thick concrete and steel casks, well-isolated from its environment. There's no risk of leaking - spent nuclear fuel is a solid ceramic, not the green slime of cartoons. In fact, nuclear is the one technology in which all waste is accounted for.
A nuclear power plant emits clouds and power; the waste is kept.
A nuclear power plant emits clouds and power; the waste is kept.
8
I'm an environmentalist but don't support the renewal of the Indian Point license. This plant has had numerous safety problems and shutdowns. it's in a populated area,, on an earthquake fault and is a possible terrorist target. There are no adequate evacuation plans that could work. I am pleased that the Governor and other elected officials in NYS are pushing for the closure of Indian Point and hope that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will listen.
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
23
As an environmentalist, you should then call for the replacement of Indian Point with a newer and safer nuclear power plant. Otherwise, Indian Point's very small risk of incident is well worth the clean electricity for millions in NYC.
14
Considering that your region is transmission constrained with almost no capability to develop renewables I assume you are perfectly happy with increasing the use of Marcellus Shale natural gas and the associated increased greenhouse gas emissions to replace Indian Point. Closing Indian Point will contribute to climate change and increase the damage being done by shale gas development. That's one of the reasons that the Governor doesn't actually do anything real to shut it down. He must be aware that if he does his climate legacy goes directly into the garbage bin.
11
Explain the possible terrorist threat?
Having worked in nuclear for over 40 years and observed nuclear security measures, I can pretty much assure you, you would have a better chance getting a gold bar out of Fort Knox, than getting anywhere near any critical equipment at a US nuclear site.
Having worked in nuclear for over 40 years and observed nuclear security measures, I can pretty much assure you, you would have a better chance getting a gold bar out of Fort Knox, than getting anywhere near any critical equipment at a US nuclear site.
2
I think I know a little bit about this, and I tell you this....at all of the nuclear plants, the only plan for a meltdown is fire hoses and water,,,and where does the water go? Fukishima debunks everything about safety. Fukishima tells us there is no plan in the event of disaster. Do you want one of these plants in your back yard? Of course not, because they are not safe. They are not safe anymore than "duck and cover" under school desks will save you from a nuclear explosion. Its a pack of lies and anyone with a brain that functions knows this.
12
Yes, there is a plan, it is called evacuation. We also learned from Fukushima and plants have been upgraded to deal with Fukushima-type events. Even though the radioactivity that did escape Fukushima did not have the capacity to cause bodily harm. Nobody died or got sick from radiation. In fact, many people died from the chaos of evacuation. The real tragedy was the tsunami which killed more than 10,000 people. Nuclear plants are safe. Coal and gas produce more radioactive elements than nuclear. The mining for metals used in renewables produce more radioactive elements than nuclear. There is perceived risk, and actual risk. Like an airplane. Many perceive airplanes to be dangerous given that they can crash and kill, but still remains many orders of magnitude safer than driving a car. Same with nuclear power, which has about 50 people to die in all of nuclear power's history.
20
Fukushima had a meltdown mainly because it lost ALL power - both on and off the plant - it had been hit with a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami. This can't happen to a US plant because ours our built much higher up on the shores than Fukushima, and we have a much better infrastructure to bring power, water etc to the plants. In addition to that, our plants have much more modern (and thicker, and safer) containment domes - the Fukushima containment was very flimsy.
Take a look at the actual safety record of North American nuclear plants. Over 20% of our power is generated for the last 50 years, with a fuel that puts out ZERO carbon into the air, on-demand reliable power 24-7/365 and ZERO civilian deaths. Three Mile Island was our worst accident which was nearly 50 years ago which had with no deaths, and no civilian with exposure more than a single chest x-ray. What energy generation technology can claim that?
Take a look at the actual safety record of North American nuclear plants. Over 20% of our power is generated for the last 50 years, with a fuel that puts out ZERO carbon into the air, on-demand reliable power 24-7/365 and ZERO civilian deaths. Three Mile Island was our worst accident which was nearly 50 years ago which had with no deaths, and no civilian with exposure more than a single chest x-ray. What energy generation technology can claim that?
31
I live almost halfway between Indian Point and Millstone. I'd be perfectly happy next door to either. I've toured Indian Point and seen the changes they have made to anticipate the low-probability events like the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. The meltdown at Fukushima was a terrible disaster in terms of the cost and disruption the evacuation caused. But it also forced the industry to strengthen preparations for multiple loss of power events. The US nuclear generating fleet is safer today than it was prior to Fukushima.
2