The nuclear debate began long before this forum, and could go on forever. No matter how safe the facilities are made, they cannot be 100% when considering the forces of nature as well as the forces of hostile intent, and even of you could make them 100% safe against those things, there’d be the waste and perpetual care of decommissioned sites to live with. As to the cost, we were promised when the site at Seabrook was built that nuclear power would be so cheap it wouldn;t even be metered. We’re still paying economically for that boondoggle.
Nuclear power is expensive, unsafe, and leaves an eternal legacy that IMHO is not worth the initial investment.
Other power sources have relatively paltry issues. In combination, I believe other sources are capable of providing sufficient power without the immense costs and dangers of nuclear. I see nuclear power as having no redeeming value in the U.S… Its only value is as a coverup for producing nuclear weapons-grade materials…like North Korea and Iran are doing.
@mountainbike Yes, there is considerable hydro power power to be developed yet. The intermdiate future for the US is very efficient gas combined cycle plants. Such plants are over 50% efficient, compared to a maximum for coal of 42%, and generate only half the CO2 per KWHr that coal fired plants do.
France generates 78% of it power from nuclear and has never had a serious accident. Canada generates 78% of its power from nuclear and hydro and is planning additional large hydro power in Labrador.
As they are discovering in Europe, to achieve 20% of power from renewables (excluding hydro), completely disrupts the economy.
Just bough a neat book by one of the founders of Greenpeace, now an ex-Greenpeace.
He was the only scientist of the group. The book is called “Confessions of a Greenpeace Drop-out, and the making of a sensible environmentalist”, by Patrick Moore. From it you will learn that Greenpeace is against every large scale power development, including hydro and only supports things that don’t make sense economically, but sound green. These same people scare you with Global Warming caused by us, even though the earth’s temperature has not risen in the last 13 years inspite of an increase in CO2.
Nuclear power is expensive becasue anti-nuclear groups make it that way in the hopes of stopping it. The examples that SMB gave show what’s wrong with nuclear power. Nuclear power plants on the ocean, in earthquake zones, or near volcanoes are just asking for trouble. Mismanagement did in Chernobyl, and caused a minor problem at Three Mile Island. There are 2 nuclear power plants at Calver Cliffs, MD that have ben operating for decades without incident. But Calvert Cliffs, MD is on the Chesapeake Bay about 200 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. It seems to me that nuclear power plants could be located on much of the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and along most major rivers in the US without much chance of problems.
@jtsanders There are quite a number of nuclear plants already located on the Great Lakes and have been operating since 1966. In Ontario, Canada there are 2 large plants (4000 mw and 3000 MW) on Lake Ontario and 2 large ones, 3000MW each on Lake Huron. None of these have ever had a serious problem.
The San Onofre plant on the Pacific Coast in California is located VERY NEAR the San Andreas Fault. Whoever made that ludicrous decision needs counselling.
Nuclear power is expensive becasue anti-nuclear groups make it that way in the hopes of stopping it.
The anti-nuclear groups are part of the problem…but not even close to the main cause.
Every single new nuclear plant in the US is custom built. This is by far the biggest cause these cost overruns. Seabrook NH plant is a prime example. Original cost - $4 Billion for 2 plants…Ended up building 1 plant for a cost of $8 billion. It was a fiasco. New problem after new problem after new problem had to be solved.
As for making nuclear power “SAFE”!!!
New technology is being looked at. (Actually it’s old…but we abandoned it because the by-product doesn’t create material for making nuclear bombs.
Thorium reactors could be the saving grace for nuclear technology world wide. Unfortunately MOST of the research is NOT being done in the US…but in India and China. Far safer then the nuclear reactors we have now…and almost zero chance of a Japan or 3-mile island or Chernobyl disaster.
Some time ago we discussed the advantages of nat gas in price. It’s important to realize that energy companies are not interested in giving companies and individuals the best bang for the buck and in no way should we think of them as saviors. Recently, plants and home customers have seen their energy costs for nat. Gas skyrocket in this state as some how the delivery price has become as much as ten times greater then the actual cost of the gas, making it now close to being in line with the expensive oil they left behind. It’s a rigged shell game, pun intended ! Bet your buttocks that wind, solar etc. if farmed out to present companies or anyone else, will still price delivery to that “sweet spot” too. If tomorrow, salt water became a free energy source, some how it would cost you 4.00 a gallon. If only, 3.99 in taxes, some one will get their cut.
It's important to realize that energy companies are not interested in giving companies and individuals the best bang for the buck and in no way should we think of them as saviors.
And nor are they interested in doing what’s BEST for the environment. Their track record is appalling. And you wonder why there are people protesting against nuclear power.
Racially profiling and illegally detaining American citizens is not just “politically incorrect.” It’s a violation of the constitutional rights of American Citizens. You would think that would be of paramount importance to all American citizens, not just the ones being racially profiled.
"Every single new nuclear plant in the US is custom built. "
Only the building they are located in. The reactors and generators are modular, and there are only a couple of modules (two I think) approved for new construction at this time. The “powerplants” consist of several of these modules clustered together.
Each reactor has the output of a medium sized wind farm, and most nuclear power plants consist of 6 to 10 reactors.
The pumps/controls and even the software is ALL custom built for each power plant. The way the pipes are run…the cooling…all custom built. Each plant is different and each has their own design and build problems.
Nuclear power might be compared to bologna. If you could see what goes on behind the closed doors when they are making it you might not buy it. But then, if we get hungry enough we might reconsider the bologna and if we get cold enough or hot enough we might reconsider the"nucullur" power,
And as for the environment and energy, what of the BP catastrophe? Is “out of sight, out of mind” a good solution to dealing with environmental disasters? Will those tons of sludge show up again in the future?
And has the environmental liability cap on oil companies been eliminated?
And as for the environment and energy, what of the BP catastrophe? Is "out of sight, out of mind" a good solution to dealing with environmental disasters?
Go to Alaska and you can still find pools of oil from the Exxon Valdez. And we all know how well oil is for the environment.
Like most economic decisions, choosing your power source(s) is a matter of compromise. If you go with wind and solar power, you face large up-front costs. If you shun renewable sources of energy for nonrenewable sources of energy in favor of business-as-usual, you continue down the path of destruction the oil industry has given us.
Personally, I’ll opt for renewable energy. Like most other infrastructure, early investment will pay dividends in the years that follow.
Compared the the environmental impact of disasters like the BP oil spill, I’ll take wind energy any day.
Possible solutions sometimes acquire unwarranted momentum and become snow balls rolling down a long hill. Wind power, solar power, and nuclear power are each held above their actual relative useful status by competing political/financial organizations. If all subsidies, direct and indirect were eliminated, where would those industries be?
US nuclear plants are all boiling light water (BLW) design, but there were 4 major manufacturers, GE, Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering (now ABB). Typical sizes were 500, 750, 800, and 1100 Megawatts each. And, yes, each plant is basicaly custom built.
Canadian plants are all Heavy Water (D2O), natural uranium fuelled, so no uranium upgrading (enriching) is needed. (The Iranians have shown lkittle interest in this desing cycle) They are all the same design by Atomic Energy of Canada, and the two major fabricators have to work to the same design. This has a substantial cost advantage. People in Rochester, NY are barely aware that across lake Ontario there is 7000 megawatts of nuclear power operating from 12 reactors on two sites. Sizes of these reacors are 500, 600, and 750 MW.
All French plants are of the same US licencensed BLW design and made by the same French manufacturer. They are all the same design and quite trouble-free.
No one has ever been killed by a nuclear reactor accident in the US. If you add up all the deaths from coal mining (direct and indirect), transportation and respiratory deseases caused by coal, you get a very high figure. When the late Ted Kennedy mounted an attack on the nuclear industry it responded with a bumper sticker that read “More people were killed in Ted Kennedy’s car than at Three Mile Island”.
Of course no source of power is entirely safe, but in developing countries the most deaths are caused by the indoor burning of dung and peat for cooking. These people would give their right arm for clean and safe nuclear supplied electricity. I do agree that the Thorium Cycle has the best prospects for nuclear power, which will make a major comeback now that the “green” and renewable options (except for hydro) are not delivering. Europe is proving that at this very moment.
@texases Good set of figures. Today, around 50+% of all electric power is generated from fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil), about 30% from nuclear and the rest hydro and other renewables. The other renewables amount to next to nothing in output, yet get huge subsidies per KWHr or BTU.
I am personally on favor of NO subsidies, so consumers and industry will become more frugal.
The figure for 2010 is a real eye opener; These huge Obama generated subsidies will result in very little added reliable energy. The sun has to shine for photo-voltaic and the wind has to blow for windmills. The current administration is heading down the EXACT futile path that Europe is on now; a respected British magazine, The Economist, call the current Euro green programs “Green Lunacy”. It’s helping bankrupt Spain and driving up the cost of energy to make industry uncompetitive.
