Science & Technology

Rave

Bi-Partisan Agreement on Nuclear Energy

Posted 27 months ago|29 comments|1,695 views
Written by
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO

Earlier this week President Obama held a press conference to discuss the new loan options for a new wave of nuclear power plants. The President added over 8 billion dollars of loan guaranties to creditors and utility companies that decide to invest in nuclear energy. These new guaranties bring the total of nuclear loan funds to 58 billion dollars.
After 37 years America can once again tap into the most efficient energy source in the world. Both parties in congress have already made progress on bi-partisan support for new nuclear power plants in the United States. In a time of gridlock in Washington, this new development is a fresh breeze in a stifled energy market. The recession has strained alternative energy sources such as wind and solar due to their high operating cost and inability to help base power grids with energy consumption.
Nuclear energy solves several political and economic problems in the United States. Conservatives want energy production to increase within in the United States’ boarders. This would help create jobs, stabilize the economy, increase federal revenues, and curtail US dependence on foreign oil. Liberals want to cut CO2 emissions, create jobs and focus on the environment. Nuclear energy accommodates both liberal and conservative views. Nuclear reactors emit zero CO2, provide jobs in construction and manufacturing, cuts dependence on forging oil, and allows stable base-power load for renewable energy.
However, the transition to new nuclear energy will not be easy due to lobby groups that feel the danger of nuclear energy is not the solution the country needs. These anti-nuclear sentiments are rooted deep in the American psyche. From the three eyed fish that lives outside the nuclear plant on The Simpson’s to Three mile Island in New York, Americans fear the unknown dangers of nuclear energy. Because of this strong public opinion on nuclear energy the US has not built a nuclear power plant that is still operating since 1973 yet nuclear energy still accounts for 20 percent of electricity in the US.
Something has to give. The United States is the richest country in the world but still runs on the same coal technology that started the first industrial revolution. Renewable energy will not reduce CO2 emissions in the short or long term without coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear energy. The grid needs to be upgraded and building nuclear power plants will encourage new grid technology to be utilized. In addition, America cannot support standing armies in the Middle East defending oil supplies or allow OPEC to dictate oil prices. Nuclear energy is the only solution to all of these problems.
Fortunately, the newest generation of nuclear power reactors can be constructed in factories and shipped by rail. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 02/18/10 A-1) these small reactors can be produced in factories rather than building them onsite which cuts down on cost and building time for new power plants. The time for nuclear energy is here and it is time to readdress many unfounded fears about nuclear energy and radiation in America.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
27 months ago: It's about time. Let's hope the we begin building 4th generation reactors (fast breeder) that will use the nuclear waste we have been accumulating. But even 3rd generation fission reactors are okay by me in the short term. Let's leave coal where it belongs - in the ground.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: This is just another government bail out for a failing business that should fail. Construction of a nuclear plant is so expensive that no utility, banks,or hedge fund will ever finance it and no insurance conglomerate will insure it. The government gets stuck with guaranteeing 100% of the loan and there is a 50% chance of default(meaning we taxpayers end up paying). Construction planners always low ball the costs and then there are 800% cost overruns and they take at least 10 years to construct. We still have no clue what to do with the waste that remains radioactive for 1/4 million years,(we canceled Yucca Flats), and if they do decide to reprocess the waste like in France then we have weapons grade material shipped all over the states with a huge potential for terrorism.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: You have some good points here. The cost is very high especially for the 1000+ mega watt plants. However, there are several smaller types of reactors which I have been working very hard on in terms of research. I will write about that when I talk to some people.

In terms of radioactive waste, without recycling, we have a very small amount of waste. Check the department of energy website. All spent fuel for nuclear energy fits in a 40 yard X 100 yard X 10ft high for the entire United States. If we recycled it would be even less. Think about how much coal we burn.

Terrorism is a non factor. All US reactors have shields of concrete and several other safety features so melting down a reactor by terrorism would be hard, and if it was possible, it would not hurt any US citizens. By the way, nuclear power plants cannot blow up, the fuel is in a solid state and cannot be turned into a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear power is much safer than coal, we are just not aware of the facts and scared of it. I used to hate the idea of nuclear, but I would rather have it than blowing the tops of mountains.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: I am all for stopping mountaintop mining and burning of coal, but if nuclear were truly as cheap as they claim utilities should be able to build them and get them insured without the government's help. What ever happened to the Free Market System in actual practice?
The absolute cheapest way to generate electricity is to invest in conservation efforts and the results are nearly instant. We don't have to wait ten years to see the results. The government is giving ten times as much to the nuclear industry as it is to renewable energy, and while we are wasting time going backwards with nuclear, the rest of the world is dominating the renewable energy production.

The high level waste does contain a lot of plutonium, the most toxic element known and can easily be made into "dirty bombs".

Soon our old plants will need to be de-commissioned which will cost three times as much as it did to build the plant, because everything is radioactive. All of this supposedly "Low Level Waste" will have to be buried away from humanity forever.

I like your idea of smaller decentralized plants, but PV systems on every roof with plug in cars and neighborhood sodium sulfur batteries is as decentralized as you can get.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: You are right about the cost of nuclear power plants in America. However, it is not like that in the rest of the developed world. Because of irrational fear of radiation in America, the government banned new nuclear power plants. American companies are some of the world leaders in nuclear energy but we have to build overseas. Most of the cost for the first few reactors will be to pay the government to agree on all new nuclear plans. So if the government is incurring the high price, they can guaranty loans to start the process.( I will post separate articles on this subject with sources)

When it comes to plutonium, it is toxic if ingested in large amounts and even then iodine treatment handles those very rare cases. Dirty bombs are not big threats to society, the explosion to "spread" the radiation is more deadly then any amount of radiation. (the department of energy has several pages on this topic.)

Coal plants and solar power plants has more low level waste radiation then nuclear power plants because of the natural radiation in coal and heavy materials.

Let me be clear, I love PV systems, wind and other renewable energy sources and we need to keep working on them. However, we need solutions in the next decade not the next 20 years. Nuclear power could cut emissions in a huge way in the next 5 years.

offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
27 months ago: We already get 20% of our electrical needs from nuclear plants. If you compare their safety record with coal mining there is no comparison. Nuclear wins. If you compare coal's toxicity and it's damage to human health with nuclear, there is no comparison. Coal is deadly. Also, we are not talking about 3 mile island type of reactors. We need breeder reactors that run on our existing nuclear waste.

This is how I see it. We need a "tax and dividend" system put in place immediately to tax carbon at the mine entrance or well head. This tax would be evenly distributed to every single legal resident in the country. This would offset for them the increased cost of energy, but also motivate them to use renewable sources of energy that would enjoy a lower cost.

We need to stop mining coal now. Not tomorrow or the next day. Now. But we also need an energy source that will provide when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. That my friends, is nuclear.

You can argue until the cows come home about the negative effects of all manner of things we must do but that only pushes us toward the end of civilization. Yes, birds can fly into wind turbines and be killed. The shade from vast areas covered in photovoltaics will harm flora and fauna. Nuclear power plants have been known to cause terrible injury. But these risks we have to take or we are screwed.

Coal, right now, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, worldwide from all the toxins carried in the air. Nuclear has to be in the mix of non-CO2 producing energy sources. Let's get started.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: I agree that we need a carbon tax on coal that will reflect the true ecological and health costs of coal. Same with all fossil fuels. That will probably make nuclear more cost competitive.
I don't like breeder reactors however because then the fuel is highly radioactive bomb grade material.
The government didn't ban nuclear plants. The public decided they didn't want nuke plants in their back yard. It is going to be hard to change that.
You say that the answer to our energy problems is nuclear and within 5 years but the soonest you can get a nuke plant up is 10 yr, and most have a bunch of delays.
The answer is #1 conservation (Quickest and Cheapest) #2 More Natural Gas plants (Quick, cheap, clean, and easy) #3 Wind, Run of the river and tidal turbines, and # 4 Hybrid Nat. Gas and concentrated solar thermal plants utilizing the same boiler. #5 Sterling thermal solar plus sterling co-generation of existing plants. #6 rooftop photovoltaics with neighborhood NaS batteries.

All of these will be quicker to get up than a Nuke plant and by the time the first Nuke is up and running it will be obsolete because the price of everything else will have dropped dramatically with greater quantity, while the prices of Nukes will continue to escalate.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: I do like natural gas, glad you said that.
27 months ago: offgrid.

Welcome, and I hope you stay a while. You and Al ought to get along just great.

Omabo is playing a shell game. He's not going to allow any nuclear plants to be built. He's not going to fund any storage facilities for waste from nuclear power. He's playing politics and lying to the American public. Wait and see.

I'd say I agree with you Al, that nuclear power is the way to go, but you and I both know you're grimacing and biting your lip to keep from arguing against nuclear power.

I, with my simple mind, consider it idiotic to consider not using coal.....that is unless you think cow farts are going to kill us all.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: You are probably right about Obama but many conservatives are pushing hard on this one. In addition, Obama is running out of options on energy and grid issues, he is hedging his bets if nuclear gets some momentum. Its not right, but it is what he is doing.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: It is idiotic to continue using coal as we are now. It destroys the land when it is dug up, it creates acid rain, and spews mercury into the air and waterways. When scrubbers are used to remove particulates it uses a heck of a lot of water and generates a heck of a lot of toxic sludge that is dammed up and occasionally spills poisoning the entire valley and the watershed.

The only way to burn coal cleanly is to bubble the exhaust through water with lime to create cement and then use the rest of the water to grow algae for oil, but this technology is not fully developed yet.

Yes Coal will continue to be used for quite a while because it is cheap, but we need to wean ourselves from its use and convert to clean renewable sustainable energy sources.

Nuclear is not the answer. It creates almost as much CO2 in the creation of the fuel and construction of the plant as a conventional plant. The waste remains toxic essentially forever. It is dangerous and subject to terrorism, and it is way too expensive despite the distorted low ball industry cost estimates, otherwise the utilities and the Nuclear Industry would be able to exist without massive subsides from the government.
Nuclear power is inextricably tied to nuclear weapons as we are seeing with Iran. If we are ever to eliminate nuclear weapons, we will have to do away with nuclear fission plants also.
27 months ago: Al.
I'm glad you quit biting your lip. You were worrying me.

And CO2 is not bad or harmful. Ask any local tree.
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
27 months ago: I have just finished the book, "Storms of my Grandchildren," written by my personal hero, Dr. James E. Hansen. It's sub-title is: "The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity." It is definitely worth the time to read, even if one already knows we are in trouble. I recommend it to Altruist and Colorado. Redstateguy? Well, it does have some long words in it, but he might manage it anyway.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: You seem to understand the concept of recycling nuclear fuel and why breeder reactors are important. I will read that book very soon, thank you.
27 months ago: he he he.... you come with a sense of humor too.
27 months ago: Offgrid.

I should have some fun with your name.

I will not read the book. I already know what it says. Capitalism is bad, and socialism sure is convenient.
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
Content Removed by offgridguy
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: Thank you, I will take a look. Check out the PBS website about why America is going scared of Nuclear power.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

I had a friend earning his masters in Nuclear Engineering and physics. I told him nuclear power was the most dangerous thing on earth, boy did he give me an education.

I understand why people are scared and I will never get in anybodies face about nuclear, but take a look at this site and several others and you start to see in is not that dangerous. long and short term. Thanks for commenting everyone.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: There are different levels of danger with the different types of reactors. The fast breeders are considerably more dangerous than the commercial reactors we have been using, which are considerably safer than the one that melted down in Chernobyl.

Still there is no safe level of radiation, and I would just as soon minimize it. We are still trying to clean up the sites at Hanford and many other sites where toxic and radioactive waste plooms are making their way into the Columbia river and no one knows how to stop it.

Seems like a hell of a complicated, dangerous, and expensive way to boil a pot of water when you can do the same thing with the sun and some concentrating mirrors.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: "no safe level of radiation."

What is a safe level of radiation? According to a special report done by PBS (source below.) the annual radiation dose per person is 360 millirems and 300 of that dose is from natural sources such as living on earth and the sun. so what does that number mean? Nothing, our skin stops almost all Alpha and Beta radiation. So how much does it take to kill you?

Plutonium which is created from bombarding Uranium with electrons is often said to be the most radioactive element on earth. However, Radon is far more radioactive and we live on top of it everyday. You can hold plutonium in your hand and your skin stops the radiation. If you eat it, well that is your fault because it takes a few bits of pure plutonium to kill you and even then a simple iodine tablet will cure you.

It takes a does of 450,000 millirem to give you a 50% chance of dieing. We are exposed to 360 mR a year. So if you work in the US Capitol Building, you are exposed to an extra 200 mR a year because of the high levels of uranium in the marble, by federal standards that exceeds the "safety" levels for a nuclear power plant. Radiation is natural and we are exposed to it more of it then people working at a nuclear power plant, radiation is not scary compared to air pollution.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
27 months ago: What is the "safe" level of coal pollution? Is there any at all? I think not!
27 months ago: Offgrid:

Do you think there is ever a safe level of CO2?

Do you think there is ever a dangerous level of CO2?

and quit removing your posts. Al never does.
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
Content Removed by offgridguy
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: When I said there is no safe level of radiation, what I meant is that the damage is cumulative. You may get a lot more radiation being downwind from a coal plant than a nuke plant. I heard that American smokers get a lot more radiation than European smokers because the nitrate fertilizers contain more radon. I like concrete structures and I heard you can get certified radon free concrete from some sources, but most radon comes from soil underneath from cracks in the foundation. We all get a number of x-rays. We all fly in airplanes and get whacked when in the thin higher atmospheres. You are right, it is a part of life.
But we also have an epidemic of cancer and when we wonder why, we should look at that cumulative figure and realize that it all adds up.
I don't want the waste from Yucca Flats going through the known fissures to the aquifer below. I don't want the radiation from the mining tailings getting into the air I breath.
One pound of Plutonium if evenly distributed would give every person on the planet cancer, so I don't want satellites with plutonium powered reactors burning up in the atmosphere as some already have.
If terrorists could grab one of thousands of shipments of waste and blow it up upwind of a major city they could give millions cancer.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: If you want to figure out what your yearly exposure to Ionizing radiation is you can use this worksheet.
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/messenger...

Typically, about 88% of the ionizing radiation exposure
to humans comes from natural sources; most of
the remaining 12% comes from medical procedures.
In the United States, the average person is exposed to
approximately 3.6 mSv of whole body exposure per
year from all sources.
One sievert is one hundred times larger than one rem; that
is, 1 Sv = 100 rem.

Particle radiation (alpha&beta particles,protons, ions) from decay of radioactive elements is the most damaging and needs to be restricted the most.

When you talk about 450rem to die, they are talking about dying immediately from radiation poisoning. Cancer due to the cumulative effects of much smaller doses often take ten years to present. The more you get, the greater your chances of getting cancer.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: I believe you are mistaken when you say that an iodine tablet will "Cure" you of plutonium exposure. They give out iodine tablets to max out the bodies absorption so it won't take in radioactive Strontium 90.
One millionth of a gram of plutonium ingested into the lungs is enough to give you cancer and there is no known way to get that small amount out.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
27 months ago: good point, thanks for the sites.
offgridguy
offgridguy
Oak Run, CA
27 months ago: To Redneckguy. You don't have to read the book, but you might want to read my review of it:
http://anewscafe.com/2010/02/23/storms-o...
Don't be fearful, I'm sure it won't alter your present opinions but you might find it interesting.
All the best.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
27 months ago: Woe is ye who hath not heard the word of the Amish King, nor commented on his witty prose! Be ye warned that he hath returned! The Amish King hath returned. Why tarrieth thou? Away peasants and peons go and engage the King in texted discourse. GO! http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Im-Back-Han...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: Very nice review OffGridGuy. Red could use some of that.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.