U.S. Needs to Add 45 Nuclear Reactors, Emissions Study Finds

[wtmusic]

"The U.S. needs to build 45 nuclear reactors and reduce power consumption by 8 percent by 2030 to meet greenhouse-gas emission reductions called for by Congress, a report funded by the electric industry says.

The Electric Power Research Institute, whose members produce and deliver more than 90 percent of U.S. power, issued the report today. It also calls building 100 million plug-in electric vehicles and retrofitting about 18 percent of U.S. coal-power plants to capture emissions.

The House of Representatives approved legislation in June intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 42 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. The U.S. Senate has yet to vote on climate legislation, which President Barack Obama supports. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aUBzDKuERJqc

[David__77]

1. A thousand would be better.

France provides a good example. Nuclear energy, properly regulated and in the hands of the state, is the solution for energy.

[wtmusic]

3. Stop being sensible

It only gets you in trouble around here. :scared:

[David__77]

5. I used to be anti-nuclear.

I was reflexively anti-nuclear as a kid and teenager, as I kind of adopted a menu of "leftist" positions. But when I researched further, I came to believe that nuclear energy was an important measure to create relatively clean energy, if safety is properly addressed, which it can be. I do understand people's principled opposition to it, though. There are real problems. There is a social and environmental cost to all energy production, as well as a financial/resource cost. These things must be balanced.

[ensho]

2. no more nuke power plants!

nt

[ramapo]

4. A lot better than coal

In retrospect, the biggest disaster of Three Mile Island was the end of the nuclear power industry. I have long been anti-nuke but the move to coal has been a complete, utter, and far-reaching ecological disaster with no end in sight.

Wind, solar, and other renewables are great but these in no way can replace coal.

[GliderGuider]

6. What about a change to Business as Usual?

While I think that nukes are much less damaging to the global environment than coal, being asked to choose between them is like asking whether you would rather be executed by lethal injection or electrocution. Wind, solar, hydro and biomass will eventually replace coal and nuclear ... if and when we also scale back our consumption needs by 80% or so. The only long-term question is how much of that re-scaling will be voluntary.

[wtmusic]

7. How do you advocate implementing involuntary re-scaling of consumption?

:shrug:

[phantom power]

9. Nature will implement the involuntary part for us.

[ramapo]

8. Involuntary

I see no way that any large percentage of society will voluntarily scale back consumption. I think the only influence on consumption is economic health and unfortunately to a large degree, economic health is based on consumption.

[GliderGuider]

10. That's my take on it as well.

The change we would need to make to our global cultural narrative (in terms of what constitutes happiness and what the markers of social status are) is pretty daunting. We may yet succeed at that task, but at this point most of the trends are heading in the wrong direction.

[TheWraith]

28. We cannot reduce consumption by 80%. That's simply impossible.

Not without giving up most of modern society. We need MORE energy as our civilization develops, not less.

[GliderGuider]

32. You got it

When you say, "Not without giving up most of modern society," you have hit the crux of the matter. What God ordained a "modern society" in perpetuity as our birthright? What makes you think we won't have to give up flat-screen TVs and discretionary transcontinental travel at some point?

[TheWraith]

51. Because today is better than yesterday.

And tomorrow will be better than today. Any notions about a past of being "in harmony" with nature or it somehow being better are romanticized tripe, ignoring the realities that made life virtually unbearable pre-industrialization.

[Nederland]

58. Agreed

The minute I see a significant number of all those people who claim we were better off 10 years ago than we are today living off the land, working 14 hour days just to feed themselves, no electricity, no antibiotics, and no pain medication--then I'll believe them.

Until then, no sale.

[Terry in Austin]

59. Ah -- it's The Credo

And tomorrow will be better than today.

We seem to have come to the crux of the matter. You state here the central tenet of what is essentially dogma. Romanticized tripe, if you prefer.

[kristopher]

38. The claim that we need to reduce consumption by 80% is a crock of shit.

It is an example of a false dichotomy. The choices allegedly are limited to either:
A) Build more nuclear
or
B) Reduce consumption by 80%

Since an 80% reduction in consumption is considered by most people to be either unrealistic or undesirable, this choice isn't really a choice at all and reasonable, uncritical readers can be expected to accept choice A.

The problem, of course, lies in the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the 80% number is a fiction. There is absolutely no basis for the implicit assumption that renewable energy sources cannot meet our needs with more reasonable contributions on the range of 20-30% improvements in overall energy efficiency.



Original GG statement:
While I think that nukes are much less damaging to the global environment than coal, being asked to choose between them is like asking whether you would rather be executed by lethal injection or electrocution. Wind, solar, hydro and biomass will eventually replace coal and nuclear ... if and when we also scale back our consumption needs by 80% or so. The only long-term question is how much of that re-scaling will be voluntary.

[Nederland]

41. Depends on what you call voluntary

If dwindling resources result in scarcity, that result in drastically higher prices, that result in reduced consumption, is that "voluntary"?

[abqmufc]

12. Three Mile was NOT the biggest accident in the U.S.

The largest nuclear accident was in New Mexico, near the Navajo Nation and several Pueblo's (Laguna and Acoma).

"The biggest expulsion of radioactive material in the United States occurred July 16, 1979, at 5 a.m. on the Navajo Nation, less than 12 hours after President Carter had proposed plans to use more nuclear power and fossil fuels. On that morning, more than 1,100 tons of uranium mining wastes -- tailings -- gushed through a packed-mud dam near Church Rock, N.M. With the tailings, 100 million gallons of radioactive water gushed through the dam before the crack was repaired.
By 8 a.m., radioactivity was monitored in Gallup, N.M., nearly 50 miles away. The contaminated river, the Rio Puerco, showed 7,000 times the allowable standard of radioactivity for drinking water below the broken dam shortly after the breach was repaired, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The few newspaper stories about the spill outside of the immediate area noted that the area was "sparsely populated" and that the spill "poses no immediate health hazard."
Since 1950, when a Navajo sheepherder named Paddy Martinez brought a strange-looking yellow rock into Grants, New Mexico from nearby Haystack Butte, the area boomed with uranium mining. Grants styled itself "the Uranium Capital of the World," as new pickup trucks appeared on the streets and mobile-home parks grew around town, filling with non-Indian workers. For several years, before the boom abruptly ended in the early 1980s, many workers in the uranium industry made $60,000 or more a year. The local newspaper displayed an atomic logo, and blamed the publicity that followed the spill on "Jane Fonda and the anti-nuclear weirdos have scared the hell out of people . . ."
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/UraniumInNavLand.html

Again I urge you to look at the complete cycle of nuclear power. The mining and genocide of an entire generation of men and women in AZ and NM is widely documented. I suggest "If You Poison Us - Uranium and Native Americans", by Peter Eichstaedt or "Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples" by Donald Grinde.

The issue of mining and transport of waste and fuel must be added into the equation when one states "nuclear is safe" or "nuclear is cleaner than...." b/c it is not. We can talk about the possibility of a solution (to waste, mining) but until that happens (which in 50 years of nuclear development a solution has not been found) we must STOP all uses of nuclear materials.

The reality is most people don't live where the true cost of nuclear power or weapons is felt. So I don't blame most who claim its a better option....for you it maybe b/c you won't deal with the true costs. They are felt in areas like Church Rock and Shiprock, NM both on the Navajo Nation, where EPA estimates over 100 uranium tailings piles exist still from the first wave of mining operations. In towns like Gallup and Grants, NM one can take a geiger counter on a windy day and getting a pretty significant reading due to tailings blowing in the wind. Tailings that have sat outisde the town for over 35 years. Cleanup is not considered an option b/c it is a rural area. In Albuquerque, geologists state our aquifer (drinking water) will be contaminated within 10 years as Sandia Labs nuclear waste dump sits directly over the aquifer and is leaking downward into the water.

The reality is nuclear is not safe. Just ask a Navajo miner, if you can find one that has not already died from cancer. The reality is mining operations are already being discussed in the SW. People like Bruce Babbitt have a heavy hand in this b/c they have mining claims near the Grand Canyon and other "protected lands" on the Colorado Plateau (such as Grand Staircase Escalante N.P. which b.c it is under BLM can allow mining in the park). Public meetings have begun on Acoma Pueblo as the want to start mining near the tribes scared mountain - Mt. Taylor.

[Greyskye]

31. Good post.

A belated welcome to DU.

[Nederland]

42. I wonder how that compares to coal

I wonder if you compare the health risks of coal mining versus uranium mining which fares better.

I honestly don't know. Anyone?

[diane in sf]

49. Thank you--great post--it could it's own thread

[NNadir]

62. Really? And compared with the air pollution deaths in the US in the next 12 hours,

the death toll from this "greatest accident" was what, exactly?

What, exactly, in your imagination is the results of the Kayenta coal mines in um, as you say, "genocidal terms?"

Don't know? Don't care?

In your fetish for this "greatest accident" did you ever compare it with the events at the Big Sandy River?

Don't know a fucking thing about Big Sandy River and the um, "tailings?"

Why am I not surprised?

One of the thing fundies like to do is to take things out of context. Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all the stuff that anti-nuke fundies don't care about.

It merely needs to be vastly superior to all the things dumb fundies don't care about, which, easily, it is, according to just about every LCA study published in the scientific literature for the last several decades.

Since the external costs of nuclear energy are so much lower than all the stuff anti-nuke fetishists don't care about, in effect, the insistance that only nuclear energy need be perfect and that every other form of energy can kill indiscriminately at well as certainly killed more people on this planet in the last ten years than is represented by the entire Native American population of the United States.

[abqmufc]

63. Actuaully...

I work for a national tribal environmental organization. I am the director of a program solely focused on the clean air act and tribal nations. I sit on the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, a FACA committee selected by the White House. I was also a FOIA officer in the Divison of legal counsel for IL EPA.

I did my master thesis on the nuclear legacy and the impacts to tribal nations. I focused on three tribes: the Navajo and uranium mining; the Nez Perce tribe and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation; and the Western Shoshonee and Yucca Mountain.

DEATH does not have to be the ultimate bench mark for "bad". How about the entire loss of livestock (sheep and cows) which an entire portion on the Navajo Nation used to live off of as they have no economy and do live of the land. Pictures can be found of horses, cattle and sheep rotting from the inside out due to radioactive exposure (drinking the water). How about the dramatic increase in depression, cancer and other health concerns linked to long term nuclear materials exposure in place like Grants, Gallup and the Navajo Nation. How about the entire community of Church Rock, NM who can no longer use their ground water (all wells capped) b/c hydrology tests show they are contaminated.

Isolated? We are talking about the entire Colorado Plateau altered due to our nuclear legacy. We are talking about the longest stretch of the Columbia River destroyed due to Hanford. We are talking about a nature preserve outside Chicago, IL that only exist b/c nothing could be done with the land due to early nuclear tests on those lands. The list grows my friend.

Maybe deaths are low from nuclear legacy....but the social and health impacts are great, they may just not cause immeidate death threfore not linked to nuclear exposure.

To be honest I know a great deal of this subject matter and would be glad to debate any day.

[abqmufc]

75. Take two....

Let me start again. The issues you bring up about coal are very real. Coal slurry lines, waste ponds, mining and emissions from coal fired EGUs are all problematic. They also impact all portions of this country. Where I live I have been face with the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant. One plant that would erase the climate change actions done by the states in the 4 corners region. Surrounding the Colorado Plateau there are many issues, you mentioned Kayenta (and Black Mesa). That issue alone is worth an entirely different discussion. We also, like the area surrounding the environmental catastrophe of Big Sandy, are not immune to the impacts of coal waste. U.S. EPA recently published the list of coal ash impoundment areas which have a high hazard. On that list are some places very close to my ‘home’, but the bigger issues is the demographic all listed sites are in. It is the same old same as far as an environmental justice issue.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm

This discussion began on proposals for nuclear power plants. I strongly disagree with the idea of building new sources of power whose entire cycle (mining, transport, and storage) is very problematic. I find it hard to fathom that nuclear is a ‘good source’ of energy when in the past 50 years we have not solved many of the problems associated with the nuclear industry. One example would be to store all our waste in a dormant volcano outside of Las Vegas.

Coal does have its problems, but rather than create a new problem (a massive growth in nuclear power), let’s fix the power plants we have (coal). Let’s utilize the money from cap and trade (despite my hatred for market based solutions) programs to get coal fired EGU’s to be as clean as technology will allow. If we just did that we’d make a major impact in pollution in this country. I suspect those around the 25 proposed coal EGUs in MI might find at least some solace in knowing the plants would be the cleanest in the world. And why shouldn’t they be?

While we are cleaning up coal plants, and ensuring the entire process of power from coal (mining, transport, waste disposal) is done as soundly and safely as possible. Furthermore, make an honest effort in this country to switch from coal to new sources. Those include biomass, solar, wind, geothermal and whatever else out there. But you must remember it is not a one shoe fits all situations. Energy solutions must be based on ones bioregion and the resources available. Coal won’t last forever, especially when plug hybrids could be impact our coal or other source dependency.

Ironically this website I found was the only DOE page that gave a projected span of coal left in the country at current use…it’s a kid’s page. 225 years at current use. However, current levels of coals (and all energy is rising).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

So if we all buy plug in hybrids then we increase coal consumption. 71% of all oil used in this country is for transportation. Suburbia buying Volts will only make that 225 years of coal go away sooner. So even cleaner burning coal power plants is only a temporary fix.


I truly believe if we clean up current coal EGUs and push for renewable that exclude nuclear (at least till we can solve mining, transport, and storage) we will have done a great deal.

[leveymg]

11. Nuclear has a larger carbon footprint than either hydro or wind power

according to a report prepared for the UK Parliament, see, "The Carbon Footprint of Electrical Power Generation", http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

Hydro Hydropower converts the energy from flowing water, via turbines and generators, into electricity. There are two main types of hydroelectric schemes; storage and run-of-river. Storage schemes require dams. In run-of-river schemes, turbines are placed in the natural flow of ariver. Once in operation, hydro schemes emit very little CO2, although some methane emissions do arise due to decomposition of flooded vegetation. Storage schemes have a higher footprint, (10-30gCO2eq/kWh), than run-of-river schemes as they require large amounts of raw materials (steel and concrete) to construct the dam.9Run-of-river schemes have very small reservoirs (those with weirs) or none at all so do not give rise to significant emissions during their operation. Carbon footprints for this type of hydro scheme are some of the lowest of all electricity generation technologies (<5gCO2eq/kWh).

Wind Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the lowest carbon footprints. As with other low carbon technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the production of steel for the tower, concrete for the foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades.10These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2emissions. Emissions generated during operation of wind turbines arise from routine maintenance inspection trips. This includes use of lubricants and transport. Onshore wind turbines are accessed by vehicle, while offshore turbines are maintained using boats and helicopters. The manufacturing process for both onshore and offshore wind plant is very similar, so life cycle assessment shows that there is little difference between the carbon footprint of onshore (4.64gCO2eq/kWh) versus offshore (5.25gCO2eq/kWh) wind generation (Fig 2).11 The footprint of an offshore turbine is marginally greater because it requires larger foundations.

Nuclear Nuclear power generation has a relatively small carbon footprint (5gCO2eq/kWh) (Fig 2). Since there is no combustion, (heat is generated by fission of uranium or plutonium), operational CO2emissions account for <1% of the total. Most emissions occur during uranium mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication. Decommissioning accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2emissions, and includes emissions arising from dismantling the nuclear plant and the construction and maintenance of waste storage facilities.12The most energy intensive phase of the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts for 40% of the total CO2emissions. Some commentators have suggested that if global nuclear generation capacityincreases, higher grade uranium ore deposits would be depleted, requiring use of lower grade ores. This has raised concerns that the carbon footprint of nuclear generation may increase in the future (see Issues)

[wtmusic]

13. Wind/solar have a huge carbon footprint simply because they are not ready

Every year we put off bringing nuclear plants online puts us farther in the hole, so indirectly money diverted to wind/solar generation is sealing our fate.

There is no way that wind/solar will prove viable before it's too late.

[leveymg]

14. Every dollar thrown into nuclear delays the solar-hydro-wind power transformation

The thing that really stands in the way of the greening of the power grid is poor political decision-making, such as the one to divert limited energy conversion capital into nuclear.

Besides, it takes 10-15 years to get a new nuclear plant on line.

[wtmusic]

15. There is no practical, peer-reviewed analysis that says wind and solar

can meet our power needs by 2020. None.

Only wishful, pie-in-the-sky thinking of those frightened and ignorant of nuclear safety issues.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Let me see if I've got you straight here

You seem to be implying that there is a practical, peer-reviewed analysis that says that nuclear-fission can meet our power needs by 2020. Is that right?

I don't believe I've ever seen such a study. Could you give me a URL?

[wtmusic]

19. Here ya go.

"Meeting the world's energy needs is an urgent problem - and all practicable energy sources must be used to solve it. The exact mix in different regions will depend on many factors, particularly the indigenous fuels as well as local geography and economics. Developed countries must help developing nations to increase their energy supplies and curb existing wasteful habits. Continuing efforts must be made to reduce pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions. To make progress in discussions about energy production and the effects on the environment, it is essential to have numerical data. Without such information, it is impossible to know whether a proposed source or effect is important or negligible.

If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2

btw the whole article is worth a read. Also provided is the wind/solar argument, which doesn't hold a candle.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Um…

This does not seem to be a "practical, peer-reviewed analysis that says that nuclear-fission can meet our power needs by 2020."

It appears to be little more than an opinion piece, and I can't find where it says anything about meeting our needs by 2020.

[wtmusic]

23. Surprise, many peer-reviewed analyses include opinion.

This opinion happens to be that of a widely-respected nuclear physicist at Oxford (he passed away last year at age 80).

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/life/cl0000217.shtml

Re: the date let's call it 2050 then. Does that make a difference? When do you believe climate change will be irreversible?

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Then, you admit this is not what you implied it was

Solar and Wind farms can be built much more rapidly than nuclear plants. We need to get stuff on-line now. (Not 10 years from now.)


2050 does have a "ring" to it, though, (doesn't it?)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

From the January 2008 Scientific American Magazine

A Solar Grand Plan

By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

Key Concepts

• A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
• A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
• Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
• A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
• But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

—The Editors

…

[wtmusic]

27. Then you admit solar fails miserably by your own standard

"We need to get stuff on-line now. (Not 10 years from now.)"

Your source: 'A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."

Who the hell are Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis?

Articles By: Ken Zweibel
No Results

Articles By: James Mason
No Results

Articles By: Vasilis Fthenakis
No Results

and please...Scientific American? A magazine with an article titled, "Can You Be Too Perfect?" :rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Not by my standards. You set them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=204115&mesg_id=204147

And you still haven't shown that Nuclear Fission meets your standards.

Ken Zweibel: http://solar.gwu.edu/Zweibel.html
James Mason: http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=007537
Vasilis M. Fthenakis: http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/FthenakisCV.pdf

[Nederland]

44. A simple proposal

Pick some number of dollars that you want to dedicate to building zero emission power plants every year. The first year, divide the number up equally between wind, solar, and nuclear. For every year following that, divide the coming year's budget dollars according to the total number of MWHs generated by each method in the previous year. Money will therefore automatically flow to the method that produces the most emission free power and doing the most to reduce our carbon footprint.

Deal?

[OKIsItJustMe]

52. It's an interesting proposal, but not simple

Money cannot be the only determining factor. As has been pointed out, a nuclear plant takes up less space than a solar farm.

On the other hand, solar farms and wind farms do not produce nuclear waste.

Wind farms make noise that some consider unpleasant. PV farms are virtually silent.


However, let's just look at money for a moment. If nuclear power was twice as expensive as solar power, would it make sense to spend as much on it as we spent on solar farms, to produce half the power? (Should we tell ourselves, "Well, we're wasting our money on nuclear, but not as much as we might be!")

And once again, speed is of the essence. We need to bring alternatives on-line ASAP. You cannot build a nuclear plant in a year.

[Nederland]

54. Depends what your goals are

If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible, this would ensure that money flows to the most effective technology. Yes, you cannot build a nuclear plant in a year, but over a ten year period I suspect you can build a lot more nuclear capacity than solar and wind. I think if you agreed to spend 30 billion a year like this, the outlays would look like this:

Year 1: 10B nuclear, 10B solar, 10B wind
Year 2: 10B nuclear, 10B solar, 10B wind
Year 3: 00B nuclear, 15B solar, 15B wind
Year 4: 00B nuclear, 15B solar, 15B wind
Year 5: 00B nuclear, 15B solar, 15B wind
Year 6: 00B nuclear, 15B solar, 15B wind
Year 7: 24B nuclear, 3B solar, 3B wind

And from then on out, nuclear would clean up.

The reason is simple, if you get 20B dedicated to nuclear in the first two years, by year 7 you'd have at least 4 nuclear plants with outputs of around 1.2GW each. No way you'd have that much wind or solar by then.

Just a guess, but that's the beauty of the arrangement. You don't have to know what the right thing to do is from the outset. It's a put up or shut up arrangement. Whoever generates the most power wins.

On edit: I think it would be necessary to put in place some minimum generation requirements. It wouldn't be fair to have the wind guys put up a little 1kw turbine in someone's backyard and the solar folks put up five 200watt panels next door as a way of collecting all of the following years money. Maybe you'd say that anything under 200MW wouldn't count...

[OKIsItJustMe]

65. You may find this hard to believe, but

Here's a map of installed wind power capacity in the US.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp


It's a great deal more than 4.8GW.

Oh, and about the cost of Nuclear plants:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/665644

$26B cost killed nuclear bid

Ontario ditched plan over high price tag that would wipe out 20-year budget

Jul 14, 2009 04:30 AM

Tyler Hamilton
ENERGY REPORTER

The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province's nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

"It's shockingly high," said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.

…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics_and_feasibility

[Nederland]

66. Thanks

First of all, do these numbers represent the actual number of megawatts hours produced, or are they simply a sum total of the rating on the turbine? Big difference you know.

Second, I would calculate the wind generation numbers by adding up the total power actually produced by the turbines, the subtracting the total power produced by any carbon emitting generators that are forced to operate simply to compensate for wind power's unpredictability.

Finally, I believe my nuclear reactor costs are conservative assuming 3rd+ generation reactors. As you can see from the link below, for some reason US/Japanese companies are able to build nuclear reactors in other countries for about 2 billion a pop. I wonder why that is...

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/industry-focus/latest-news/article/2006-12-18/Westinghouse_wins_nuclear_reactor_bid.html

Regardless, if you are so confidant that wind would win the power production race in the space of a few years, what do you have to lose?

[OKIsItJustMe]

70. This isn't a game

"What do I have to lose?" Potentially, a home for my species.

[Nederland]

74. No, its not a game

The question is, how smart do you think you are? Are you so smart that you're absolutely positive that you are not mistaken in this instance? History has shown over and over that some of the worst decisions are made when a group of "experts" get together to decide what the best course of action should be to the exclusion of other possible solutions. If you really care about the future of humanity, you would be wise to choose a course of action that admits the possibility that you are wrong. That is why I suggested the arrangement above. It basically says we are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. It says "hey, maybe we're not smart enough to make this call." Sure, I think nuclear power is the best solution, but I'm not willing to bet "a home for my species" that I'm right.

Are you?

[OKIsItJustMe]

86. In principle I agree (to an extent)

We do need to turn to an array of alternatives, and for a while, nuclear fission will continue to play a role. It's inevitable. However, it's a mistake to treat all alternatives as equals.

The energy department (thanks to Jimmy Carter) has been researching this stuff for decades now.

The capacity of solar is, well, to use a phrase, "Off the chart."
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

…

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

…

Despite what some believe, the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect">Photovoltaic Effect" is not some new-fangledy thing we just discovered. Scientists have been experimenting with it for (literally) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Becquerel">centuries. In the 70's, when we all finally realized that oil would not last forever, the Department of Energy got serious about it.


Wind energy has been used for several centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill#History">maybe more than a millennium (though I'm skeptical.)

The use of water power goes back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wheel#History_of_Water_Wheel_Technology">millennia. Tesla/Westinghouse harnessed Niagara Falls to generate alternating current starting in the late 1800's.


Compared to these established technologies, nuclear fission is just a fitful child, with a heavy load of high-level radioactive waste in its diapers.

The atomic power industry was (more than in small part) created as a http://web.archive.org/web/20070509221500/www.eisenhower.archives.gov/atom1.htm">propaganda tool (a way for us to convince the rest of the world, and ourselves, that "the atom" could be used for something other than weapons.) "This titanic force must be reduced to the fruitful service of mankind."

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind. The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. The capability,already proved, is here today. Who can doubt that, if the entire body of the world's scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient and economic usage?

Since the promises of cheap nuclear power ("too cheap to meter") were necessary for propaganda purposes, it should come as no surprise that they didn't come true.


Right now, "the market" has shown us what our first priority probably should be:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.htmlRenewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2008

The power industry has been erecting thousands of wind turbines, because, today, they offer the best bang-for-the-buck. Unfortunately, like hydropower, and unlike solar panels, you can't put up wind turbines just anywhere.

So, keeping with your idea of splitting funds, I would invest funds constructing wind and solar farms, and HVDC lines. In the meantime, I'd invest heavily in basic research into solar and clean nuclear fusion (especially the work of groups like http://www.emc2fusion.org/">EMC2.)

Perhaps most importantly of all though I'd be investing money to harvest as many "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negawatt_power">negawatts" as we can. Even today, there's a whole lot of waste in the system.

[kristopher]

87. I nominate this post for "Energy Post of the Week"

If there isn't such a category there should be.

[Nederland]

88. You totally missed the point

My point was that the idea that you can simply have a bunch of experts decide what the best plan is is a very dangerous idea. You responded by quoting what a bunch of experts think we should do. If you really agree "in principle", you would not have done that. Seems clear to me that you place a great deal more confidence in "expert" people's ability to make the correct decision than I do. Here in lies the problem: there are a similar set of "experts" out there, complete with the same credentials, experiences and Phd's after their name that will advocate completely the opposite of what your post describes as facts. If you doubt me, I'm sure NNadir can dig up some examples for us.

So I ask again, are you really, really convinced of your (and your experts) infallible judgment to the extent that that you are willing to risk the planet?

Evidently you are, which I find scary.

[kristopher]

89. Another rejected concept and you think people "miss the point"

The idea that "the market" is a better driver of large scale societal policy is as dead as the idea that iron-fisted central control of economies works. The path you propose is no different than the path we've been following. It is the function of government and "a bunch of experts" to examine the performance of markets and determine where they are failing to deliver social benefits that consensus views establish as desirable.

Your recommended approach sets up renewable energy for failure since it predicates performance on the standards that exist to enable the functioning of the current undesirable system that developed around centrally controlled thermal generation and cheap fossil fuels. It takes no externalities into account and focuses on short term advantage rather than long term sustainability and universal applicability. It is based on a wealth of ignorance and denial of valid information. In short, it is a thoroughly repugnant conceptual framework to people who understand where our current energy system has failed us.

[OKIsItJustMe]

90. No, I didn't miss your point. I was refuting it

Your scheme would make more sense, if we were dealing with complete unknowns, and we had the luxury of time to arrive at an optimal solution.

1. We are not dealing with unknowns.
2. Time is of the essence.

In essence, we've been doing exactly what you describe for more than 30 years now. That's the reason Jimmy Carter created the http://www.nrel.gov">National Renewable Energy Laboratory, to research and develop various alternative sources of energy. Well, they've been doing that for three decades. New technologies (like clean fusion) will be developed, but not tomorrow. We need technologies we can deploy today.

As a result, we need to act now making the best use we can of our resources (including time and money) to have the largest positive effect we can have, in the shortest amount of time. At the same time, we need to plan for the future.

---

Today, the best working model for nuclear (fission) power is probably the French model. Nuclear advocates love to point to French nuclear power. I believe they ignore some basic facts:

1. One of the main reasons the French model works is… it's largely a government creation, with one (largely government owned) corporation, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France">EDF," holding a monopoly. They run a fleet of largely identical reactors. If we really want to emulate the French model, our model of multiple companies running multiple designs of nuclear reactors, all built as "one-offs" needs to be scrapped. (I think this notion would be anathema to many nuclear activists, especially conservatives.)
2. The French http://www.andra.fr/download/andra-favl-fr/document/090624_cp_en.pdf">still have no way to dispose of their long-term nuclear waste.

Until we have committed to and implemented a viable strategy for nuclear waste disposal I cannot accept building more fission plants.

[leveymg]

18. If we don't build the plants to expand solar and wind, the Chinese will. In fact, China is.

Our choice. Make the wrong choice, such as dumping that money into the pockets of the nuclear power industry, and we'll lose everything.

By your analysis, we shouldn't even begin to invest in expanding solar and wind technologies. That's not even logical. See,

China Invests $30 Billion in Renewable Energy; Economy Rebounds ...But China's stimulus is by far the most sweeping, with massive investment in renewable energy, including wind, hydropower and solar ...
cleantechnica.com/.../china-invests-30-billion-in-renewable-energy-economy-rebounds/ - Cached - Similar

Greentech Media: Greentech Investments Jump 60%, U.N. ReportsChinese solar companies raised $2.5 billion from stock markets in the United States and Europe. As an example, Chinese wind-power company ...
www.greentechmedia.com/.../greentech-investments-jump-60-un-reports-1076/ - Cached - Similar

China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race « Breakthrough ...Jul 7, 2009 ... a strong foothold in manufacturing solar PV cells and wind turbines. ... a multi-billion dollar investment package for renewable energy. ...
breakthroughgen.org/.../chinas-big-plan-to-take-the-lead-in-the-renewable-energy-race/ - Cached - Similar

China, India go with wind as fossils sinkChinese investment in green power is growing. Photo: Reuters ... Wind, solar, hydro and other clean technologies attracted $US140 billion ($170 billion) in ...
www.smh.com.au/.../china-india-go-with-wind-as-fossils-sink-20090604-bx8r.html - Cached - Similar

Breakthrough: China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy RaceJul 8, 2009 ... What Do We Know About China's Investment Plan? ... The "Three Gorges of Wind Power" development, valued at US $17.6 billion, will generate 20 GW ... in place to encourage the growth of the Chinese domestic solar market. ...
thebreakthrough.org/.../chinas_big_plan_to_win_the_cle.shtml - Cached - Similar

[wtmusic]

20. Of course we should invest in wind/solar

There's just no indication at this point that it will provide enough power. So the priority (and one supported by the precautionary principle) is to focus on clean energy that we know can deliver.

[leveymg]

22. We're in a Boolean loop here. There are opportunity costs to nuclear that your

analysis fails to recognize. Like, your vision of "clean energy" from nuclear isn't as clean as you claim. In fact, it's not as clean as some major rival sources. Your assumptions about costs to scale-up nuclear power generation are also highly optimistic.

Nuclear is a dead-end.

[wtmusic]

24. Tell France and the UK nuclear is a dead end

they missed the memo.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. The anti-nuke Culture War is limited to the affluent classes

Well-heeled Americans and Europeans, entertainers and "Trustafarians", won't have to worry about the price or availability of energy. They can indulge their '70s fantasies without consequence. They also want to promote this as a zero-sum game, which it isn't -- it isn't zero-sum, and it's not a game.

The rest of the world has reality to deal with. Most of the countries and states that enacted nuke bans are either ending them (Italy) or striving to end them (Germany, California). It's why more than half of the Democrats are now supportive of nuclear power, including President Obama, http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_SustainableEnergyFuture_Aug2008.pdf">Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (strongly pro-nuclear), http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/06/nasa-climate-scientist-james-hansen-makes-personal-appeal-to-barack-obama-says-current-climate-policies-are-failing/">Dr. James Hanson (anti-nuclear until recently), and http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/cand_positions.php?race_id=14&cand_id=47">Senator Al Franken (position almost identical to President Obama's).

Unlike most of the old-fashioned environmentalists -- and too many of our own fellow pro-nuclearists -- the serious thinkers are guided by empiricism, not emotion. The common threat is GHG-forced climate change, and the energy policy needed to deal with it should not be driven by monied egotists. Our role models should be Obama and Chu, not 70s rock stars and right-wing pundits who live to tweak "the libbruls". A pro-nuclear voice of progressive thought is badly needed.

--d!

[kristopher]

40. That's an interesting take. Total nonsense of coourse, but interesting.

The fact is that encouraging deployment of distributed generation from renewable resources provides a much better opportunity for the poor in underdeveloped countries to improve their standard of living than does nuclear power. Nuclear requires not only massive capital investment in generation, but also in distribution. Even here, where the cost of distribution is largely factored in, nuclear is a losing economic proposition when weighed against wind and solar. In countries where transmission and distribution infrastructure is virtually non-existent it is simple preposterous to conclude that nuclear is the savior of the poor and the bane of the rich.

Sheer, utter nonsense.


ETA- I got off topic from your post and went down a tangent. You sound so much like our frieNnd it confused me.
The idea that critics of nuclear are somehow not as reasonable or thoughtful as proponent of nuclear is also absurd. Hansen, for example, doesn't accept a forced choice brought about by the limits on resources society is willing to dedicate to the problem. He is calling for massive effort on all fronts. That doesn't support the arguments being made by either side in the context of scarce resources. The reality is that when we spend money on one technology we take money away from some other technology, it IS a zero sum game.
Another reality is that careful cost/benefit analysis of the available options rates nuclear power poorly.

[wtmusic]

46. Hansen: 4th gen nuclear is "essential"

"The common presumption that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready until 2030 is based on assumption of ‘business-as-usual”. Given high priority, this technology could be ready for deployment in the 2015-2020 time frame, thus contributing to the phase-out of coal plants. Even if the United States finds that it can satisfy its electrical energy needs via efficiency and renewable energies, 4th generation nuclear power is probably essential for China and India to achieve clear skies with carbon-free power."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/

[kristopher]

61. I think that's consistent with my picture of Hansen.

His evaluation is based on the premise that we must proceed full force on all fronts. It isn't based on the fact that we have to evaluate the technologies and select the ones with the most bang for the buck. I know you like nuclear, but I simply can't get past the extremely low EROEI it delivers; and whatever future fuel source is exploited it is going to get worse. Couple that with the exorbitant costs (aggravated by the costs of a very high failure rate that isn't included in the price/MW numbers), the length of time required to bring one online and the threat of nuclear proliferation and I simply can't support it.

I actually think the waste issue is the easiest problem to fix among the negatives.

[bananas]

64. Hansen: Nuclear can't help in the near term, and has serious issues over the long term

James Hansen: "Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term."

http://www.grist.org/article/darth-vader-and-mr-rogers/">James Hansen writes to Duke Energy on coal
Posted 11:29 PM on 1 Apr 2008

<snip>

Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term. But Massachusetts and California have demonstrated the tremendous potential of efficiency aided by appropriate incentives.

Plans for over 50 coal-fired power plants nationwide have been dropped in recent months due to rising construction and coal prices, unpredictable carbon costs, and concerns about climate change. Near-term energy needs can be met with massive but feasible conservation and efficiency programs, cogeneration, solar, wind, and biomass generation. Diversifying generation has other benefits -- creating jobs, conserving water, and minimizing the possibility of terrorist acts against the grid, about which former CIA Director James Woolsey recently warned the National Governors' Association.

<snip>

So let's be clear - Hansen does not support the pro-nuke position of building lots of 3rd generation reactors (which still only exist on paper).

Unfortunately, he's fallen for the hype about 4th generation reactors. The IFR was cancelled because they realized the electricity would be too expensive, South Africa is going through the same thing now with the PBMR. The US, USSR, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, India, China, have all been trying to develop 4th generation reactors for decades, they keep underestimating the technical difficulties and costs. Just look at how absurd their cost estimates for 3rd generation reactors were just a few years ago, this was written two years ago by a pro-nuke on the NEI blog when the Keystone report came out:

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

Since then, Moody's and others came out with much higher cost estimates, and the nuclear industry has also given much higher cost estimates when bidding for contracts and loans.

[abqmufc]

85. Those around Yucca, Monument Valley, Hanford, and Oak Ridge are not rich

Those local citizen groups around Yucca Mountain, Hanford Nuclear facility, Oak Ridge Nuclear facility, and Monument Valley (mining), along with those around the Jackpile Mine (largest open pit uranium mine at one time, on Laguna Pueblo) are not affluent, rich, or even middle class.

In each case they are poor, often a minority class who has had the nation's solution dropped on their door step with little benefit and lots of health concerns (cancer clusters, etc). Sure the affluent may be the spokesperson for a casue. But reast assured I've witnessed many a Navajo elder leading the fight against nuclear power and uranium mining.

[kristopher]

39. That statement is false.

There are a multitude of *peer reviewed studies* that prove you wrong. Here is one:

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[wtmusic]

45. And, of course, you've read this study cover-to-cover

and are going to back up the statement that "The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines", aren't you? :shrug:

[kristopher]

60. Yes I have.

It's available at the link. Look at the supplementary data and the notes, it is all there including the opportunity costs of nuclear.

[wtmusic]

67. Ah ok. So I have to buy the paper for you to substantiate your point.

:silly: whatever.

[kristopher]

69. I think the paper is open source.

Just click the arrow next to "PDF" for the main paper and "ESI" for the supplemental data.

[Dogmudgeon]

29. China also has an aggressive nuclear energy program

Eleven nuclear power stations are in operation and another eleven were under construction as of March, most of which started in the last year or two; according to Westinghouse, they are aiming for at least 100 in operation or under construction by 2020 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China">source). http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/">China Daily reports that http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/02/content_8346480.htm">a 10-fold increase by 2020 is planned. The http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/6623142.html">People's Daily has reported similar plans.

So the Chinese are working on a broad-based energy program. The bad news is that it also includes coal and gas.

--d!

[abqmufc]

33. ummmm simple google search pulled up about 20 studies....

Some from the EU but many from the US, be it Universities, think tanks or even the DOE's own reports stating yes wind and solar could be enough for all US energy. Just spend 10 minutes and surf the web. If you need help, I'll find them for you.

[wtmusic]

48. Not that I don't trust you or anything

but "just spend 10 minutes and surf the web" doesn't really cut it around here. If you want to make a point, it's up to you to back it up.

Welcome to DU

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[abqmufc]

53. here is a handful

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/study-suggests-wind-power-potential-is-much-higher-than-current-estimates/
link to NY Times article, Harvard Study.

Berkley study
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/press-releases/2009/07/16/new-wind-power-market/

This also links the Harvard study:
http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/wind-could-provide-16x-us-energy-demand


More to come.

[wtmusic]

68. Nice try.

Rule #2 - throwing quotes to lengthy, unexcerpted papers is next to worthless. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I chased down some numbers in your Berkeley reference, and here's the turd I pulled from the punchbowl:

"Notwithstanding these uncertainties, wind capacity additions over the past several years, and projected in the near- to medium-term, puts the U.S. on an early track to meet 20% of the
nation’s electricity demand with wind power by 2030".

So wind might meet 1/5 of our electricity (not energy) needs, and nary a mention of increased demand due to electric vehicles? Bah.

[abqmufc]

76. everyone is going to make their own judgement....

the point was to prove that a 10 minute internet search could provide research/info on how much wind potential exist in the U.S.A. What you may find as sound or accredited may be different than anyone else. The point was to demonstrate that information is out there. What I don't get is when someone makes a comment such as "the info is out there just look it up", someone has to respond with "prove it". Why can't they find themselves? Are they afraid of what truths may be out on the web? Or do they expect others to be there grad student and do all the research for them?

[wtmusic]

79. The bottom line is no one knows for sure.

If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In argument, legal or otherwise, we're each in charge of backing up our side. Since you feel strongly one way and I disagree, shouldn't it be up to each of us to show how we arrived at our opinion?

[kristopher]

80. No it isn't.

You should have at least a basic accurate working knowledge of the topic or you shouldn't involve yourself in the discussion. Such a working knowledge is your responsibility to obtain.

[wtmusic]

81. You've ended the debate of "nuclear viability", have you?

It's now become "working knowledge"? You should get on the phone right now to James Hansen, Barack Obama, Stephen Chu, and the governments of the UK and France - there's still quite a bit of discussion going on - and let them know you've settled the issue. :rofl:

onedit: you won't have to back anything up, just tell them you think it's all "open source"

[abqmufc]

83. you do make me laugh...

and you bring up things to disucss and consider. While I might disagree that an easy answer does exist and believe that its a capitalist model (which we are using) that is actually keeping many options off the table, I do agree one needs to have a knowledge of the subject and have resources to back it up.

The reality is everything is theory until its backed up in reality. So the answer to the question on how much wind do we have and is it enough? We will never be known till we try. I've come to the belief that a few dead birds (who I believe will adapt, as animals always have) and a noisy wind generator is better than the potential for a nuclear disaster due to tranport and disposal of waste. If you notice I am not as skeptic of nuclear power, but rather the problems with transport and disposal. Until those are solved nuclear is off the table for me. We have to try something b/c the status quo could see disaster in the next 40 years (IMO). I just don't think we should try nuclear when the problems it can create are too great.

I guess I do have enough faith that if the UK says it can create enough wind to provide electricity to all homes then I believe them. When folks from DOE and NOAA say it can be done stateside, then I tend to believe them...maybe its blind hope but its a better option than having 20 trains come through your town a day loaded with nuclear waste.

[kristopher]

84. Sometimes you make reasonable arguments but at other...

times you descend into absurdity. That is one of them. You make absurd, baseless claims about a lack of data when in fact the information is not only abundant, but quite literally right at your fingertips.

To try and portray my comment on that aspect of having an intelligent discussion as a verdict on the issue of nuclear viability reflects very poorly on your level of maturity, not on the substance of the discussion.

[abqmufc]

55. and more

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_Energy_Potential.pdf

http://www.awea.org/projects/

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/workshops/2005_summit/musial.pdf

OK I lied I need 8 minutes....and I could keep going. I've done my best to pick either federal government reports/studies OR well respect Universities (Harvard, Berkley).

[abqmufc]

56. NASA even got involved.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9987211-54.html

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Well, you can fucking forget hydro.

We have people clamoring to breach the dams up here in the Northwest for the salmon runs.

I can't believe how hard it is to make everyone happy with a solution.

[abqmufc]

34. hydro dead...sort of

the typical idea of hydro is dead b/c of the issues you bring up. Salmon are protected under law. Tribes have fishing rights, in short hydro is a bad idea. However, some tribes and cities are looking at wave power. The Makah tribe in WA has shown they can become energy self sufficent from wave power and algae fuels. Furthermore, tribes in ME are also looking at such technology. A lot of red is involved b/c of laws protect ocean animals, but the technology is holding up to the tests.

The point is no one solution b/c we must use what we have in our bioregion. Solar has to evolve past water dependency and it is. If we spent the money we've wasted on Yucca and nuclear power (as no solution to the waste has come about in 50 years of research)and would have put it towards solar and wind the probelm is solved.

US reports the West or East coast lined with wind farms could be enough for the nation. The UK said the same thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. And people like Ted Kennedy stand up against the wind farms too.

Granted, they are noisier than I originally thought, when placed near existing populations.

Wind is good, Solar is good, no doubt. I like a little diversity in my power sources though, and Hydroelectic has been a mainstay in this region for my entire life. Even in drought conditions. I'd hate to see it go, but more needs to be done to restore the salmon habitat.

Always a balance...

[diane in sf]

50. They've also said the upper midwest has enough wind to supply most of US enrgy needs

[abqmufc]

57. Article on Makah's wave energy program

"OLYMPIA — The waters off Makah Bay near the tip of Washington's Olympic Peninsula could become home to the world's first commercial wave-energy project.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday issued its first license for a so-called hydrokinetic energy project to British Columbia-based Finavera Renewables, a company working to develop wind- and wave-energy projects in the U.S., Canada, Ireland and South Africa.

If all goes as planned, Finavera's Makah Bay Wave Pilot Project would begin generating enough electricity to supply at least 150 homes by 2011."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004085547_waveenergy21m.html

While 150 homes does not sound like a lot. It is the number of homes on tribal lands and therefore it is all the tribe is concerned with right now.

Here is a NOAA powerpoint on the technology:
http://cordellbank.noaa.gov/council/Davidwhite.pdf

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Who is the new kid on the block?

Wind?
Solar?
or
Nuclear Fission?

How can you say that wind & solar are not "viable?"

[kristopher]

36. Three things

One:
This is another version of the Republican energy "plan" that we heard from McCain during the campaign. The article is published at Bloomberg.com; which some might say has rather pro=Republican-agenda bias. At the Bloomberg site if you want to track down the original open-source study by EPRI and click on the link provided to EPRI you are taken to the European Parliments Research Initiative. http://epri.org/epriorg/EPRIorg_Home.php
The EPRI we need is at http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt? However, since the Bloomberg article fails to give either the name of the report or a link to the report it isn't clear which of the multitude of reports is the one referenced. Since I'm on dial-up it is here that I abandon the quest to verify the information in the Bloomberg article. USing their website search I input "waxman markley energy bill" and got no hits. Therefore I'm stuck with searching by downloading a number of possible documents, an exercise that requires several hours.
It is my belief that one measure of the validity of a news article on a scientific study is usually closely related to the way reader is directed to the original source. News articles that misrepresent the science tend to make it very hard to verify the content of the reporters writing, while news articles that are reasonably accurate tend to make it very easy to find the original.

Two:

http://www.cleanenergyfortexas.org/pec/downloads/FERC_chief_nytimes.pdf.
April 22, 2009
Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary
By NOELLE STRAUB AND PETER BEHR, Greenwire
No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission said today.

"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum. The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role. Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity. The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies.

Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility of relying so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said. "You need firm power to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that." Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can provide a significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind. Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot provide smooth power."

Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added. "I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism," he said. "Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind's going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you'll dispatch that first."

He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need mainframes, we have distributed computing." The technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow his vision to move forward, he said. For instance, there are systems now available for concentrated solar plants that can provide 15 hours of storage. "What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it," he added. "And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads.

"So if you can shape your renewables, you don't need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they're very inflexible. You can't ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism."

'A lot that is still not understood'
Asked whether his ideas need detailed studies, given the complexity of the grid, Wellinghoff said the technology is already moving that way. "I think it's being settled by the digital grid moving forward," he said. "We are going to have to go to a smart grid to get to this point I'm talking about. But if we don't go to that digital grid, we're not going to be able to move these renewables, anyway. So it's all going to be an integral part of operating that grid efficiently."

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. reported last week on challenges in integrating a twentyfold expansion of renewable power into the nation's electricity networks but did not specifically address whether additional baseload generation would be needed. A spokesperson for NERC did not have an immediate response to Wellinghoff's comments today.

Revis James, who directs energy technology assessment for the Electric Power Research Institute, said recently that it is not clear how fast renewable energy can be added without creating reliability issues. "No one knows what the magic number is," he said. "Are we moving too fast? On the policymakers' side, there's a lot that is not still understood about the implications of a large share of renewables."

Impact on nuclear power
Wellinghoff's statement -- if it reflects Obama administration policy -- would be a huge blow to the U.S. nuclear power industry, which has been hoping for a nuclear "renaissance" based on the capacity of nuclear reactors to generate power without greenhouse gas emissions. Congress created significant financial incentives to encourage the construction of perhaps a half-dozen nuclear plants with innovative designs, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has promised Congress to accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for some of these proposals.

But a major expansion in U.S. nuclear energy would require a high effective tax on carbon emissions from coal plants, or an extended loan guarantee and tax incentive policy, according to the Congressional Research Service and outside consultants. The leading energy bills before Congress do not provide more loan guarantees. "If expansion of nuclear plants is the nation's policy, then Congress has to recognize that the U.S. energy companies cannot afford to do this alone," said Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a recent interview. "The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."

"I think is kind of a theoretical question, because I don't see anybody building these things, I don't see anybody having one under construction," Wellinghoff said. Building nuclear plants is cost-prohibitive, he said, adding that the last price he saw was more than $7,000 a kilowatt -- more expensive than solar energy. "Until costs get to some reasonable cost, I don't think anybody's going to that seriously," he said. "Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, they're not quite as expensive."

Can renewables meet demand?
There's enough renewable energy to meet energy demand, Wellinghoff said. "There's 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the Midwest, all the way to Texas. There's probably another 200 to 300 gigawatts in Montana and Wyoming that can go West." He also cited tremendous solar power in the Southwest and hydrokinetic and biomass energy, and said the United States can reduce energy usage by 50 percent. "You combine all those things together ... I think we have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using them," he said.

Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he said. "That's exactly what all the load response will do, the load response will provide that leveling ability, number one," he said. "Number two, if you have wide interconnections across the entire interconnect, you're going to have a lot of diversity with that wind. Not all the wind is going to stop at once. You'll have some of it stop, some of it start, and all of that diversity is going to help you, as well."

Push for grid modifications
But planning for modifying the grid to integrate renewables must take place in the next three to five years, he said. "If we don't do that, then we miss the boat,"Wellinghoff said. "That planning has to take place so you don't strand a lot of assets, a lot of supply assets." Unlike coal and nuclear, natural gas will continue to play a role in generating electricity, he said. "Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it's going to be there to get us through this transition that's going to take 30 or more years."

Chu reiterated before the House Energy and Commerce Committee today that he supports loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants and is working with the White House on the issue. "I believe nuclear power has to be part of the energy mix in this century," Chu said. Chu also noted today that nuclear technology, along with renewables, is an area where the United States has lost its lead. "We are trying to start the American nuclear industry again," he said.

Coal currently provides half of U.S. power, while nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent.

Three:

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[bananas]

43. The headline and article are false and misleading.

The EPRI report is calling for clean coal and dirty nukes, as they always do.
They compare cost estimates for a "full portfolio" which includes clean coal and dirty nukes vs a "limited portfolio" which excludes clean coal and dirty nukes:

"If expended today these costs would represent an average of about $16,000 per household in the full portfolio scenario compared to $28,400 in a limited portfolio that excludes new nuclear generation or carbon capture and storage."

Clearly they are not saying we "need" 45 new nuke plants. The Bloomberg article and headline are clearly false and misleading.

Obvious questions about the EPRI analysis:
- Can "clean coal" even be made to work? See Top coal CEO pessimistic about carbon capture and storage
- Last year, nuclear industry spokespersons said 45 new nukes by 2030 "was not going to happen" and "not quite sure" it was "obtainable"
- How realistic were the cost estimates, especially in light of the above two questions?

Here is the EPRI press release:

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_222923_317_205_776_43/http%3B/uspalecp604%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/epri_confirms__full_portfolio__of_technologies_key_to_curbing_co2__meeting_demand_growth__limiting_cost_increases_da_657059.html

EPRI Confirms “Full Portfolio” of Technologies Key to Curbing CO2, Meeting Demand Growth, Limiting Cost Increases
Portfolio Includes Diverse Generation, Efficiency and Electric Transportation

PALO ALTO, Calif. (August 3, 2009) – The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) today released updated “Prism and Merge” analyses that show a full portfolio of electricity sector technologies could simultaneously address the challenge of growing load demand while meeting carbon constraints and limiting increases in the cost of electricity.

<snip>

The full portfolio requires deployment of advanced technologies by 2030 comparable to those assumed in the Prism analysis; an 8 percent reduction in electricity consumption through improved end-use efficiency; 45 new nuclear units; new renewables generation equivalent to four-fold increase in current wind and solar generation capacity; and, 100 million plug-in electric vehicles.

An increase in the use of decarbonized electricity through electro-technologies present opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions in applications such as heat pumps, water heaters, ovens, induction melting and furnaces.

<snip>

The results indicate that the full portfolio could reduce the cost to the U.S. economy of reducing emissions by more than $1 trillion by 2050. Deployment of the full portfolio could result in an 80 percent increase in the real wholesale cost of electricity by 2050 relative to current costs, compared with a projected increase of more than 210 percent with a limited portfolio.

If expended today these costs would represent an average of about $16,000 per household in the full portfolio scenario compared to $28,400 in a limited portfolio that excludes new nuclear generation or carbon capture and storage.

<snip>

[bananas]

47. EPRI: The secret to carbon reduction is more coal

From 2007:

EPRI: The secret to carbon reduction is more coal
Posted 10:29 AM on 16 Aug 2007
by Sean Casten

The Electric Power Research Institute just released "The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions" (PDF), its discussion paper to "provide stakeholders with a framework develop a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) Action Plan that will enable sustainable and substantial electricity sector CO2 emissions reductions over the coming decades."
coal miner

It is crazy, mathematically bogus, economically disastrous, and generally inane ... but will reach an audience vastly larger than its rigor warrants.

First, a bit about EPRI. It is the research arm of the nation's regulated utilities. It has historically been funded by charges on electric bills, but with restructured markets, it's had to adapt its revenue model. Still, it has not strayed too far from its funding sources, and has been chronically unwilling to recommend any course of action that:

* would be contrary to the interests of regulated utilities, or
* requires anything other than massive technology R&D from which regulated utilities benefit.

<snip>

[Sirveri]

71. Note to people who don't know. All power plants pollute in some fashion.

Nuclear makes nuclear waste
Coal makes air pollution
PV Solar makes horrible mining and processing waste
Wind makes dead birds/noise/large footprint
Hydro makes dead fish/habitat destruction
Thermal solar makes large footprint/probably other stuff, haven't looked too much at this yet but I like it
Fusion makes nothing cause it doesn't exist
Geothermal unleashes all sorts of nasty chemicals into the environments
nat gas/oil makes pollution (and will get VERY expensive soon)

The fact of the matter is that we need a broad based energy infrastructure over haul now. The longer we wait, the more pain we will get later. We have established nuclear and coal industries. Our solar and wind industries are fledgling. We could see rapid growth in solar and wind and still not see enough growth in energy output to meet future demands. We have nuclear plants, we will need to replace them as they retire with something. Same with coal fired plants. For global climate change reasons I support an expansion of nuclear as oppossed to a blue sky attempt to create 'clean coal', which while it might be possible, seems a tad far fetched. We've already got nuclear waste, make a repository and make it ten times the size we think we need and we're done with it.

[wtmusic]

72. Bingo.

The biggest thing we have to fear is inaction. Who cares if nuclear waste is radioactive for a million years if the planet will be uninhabitable in a thousand?

[OKIsItJustMe]

73. Ummm… No…

You can't say, "All power plants pollute in some fashion" as if they are all equal.

For example, would you say that the pollution caused by (responsible) PV manufacturers is comparable to the pollution caused by coal-based power? (Really!?)

Here's a shocking story of PV manufacturing in China:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 9, 2008; A01

GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

…

So, I guess if you want PV, you need to dump toxic material into the environment. Huh? (Man! That sucks!)

Or do you?…

…

Because of the environmental hazard, polysilicon companies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process. But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like Luoyang Zhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say.

…

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/solar

Solar - Sunlight to Energy

Solar Energy is already being harnessed in many part of the world and it has the potential to provide several times the current world energy consumption if properly exploited. Solar can be used to directly produce electricity or for heating and even for cooling. Future potential of solar is only limited by our willingness to seize the opportunity.

There are many different ways the energy from the sun can be put to use. Plants turn sunlight into chemical energy using photosynthesis. Some ways we make use of this energy is by eating plants and burning wood. However, the term "solar power" means to convert sunlight more directly into thermal or electrical energy for our use. The two basic types of solar power are "solar thermal" and "photovoltaic".

Solar photovoltaic: This involves the generation of electricity from light. The secret to this process is the use of a semi-conductor material that can be adapted to release electrons, the negatively charged particles that form the basis of electricity.

The most common semi-conductor material used in photovoltaic cells is silicon, an element most commonly found in sand. All photovoltaic cells have at least two layers of such semi-conductors, one positively charged and one negatively charged. When light shines on the semi-conductor, the electric field across the junction between these two layers causes electricity to flow, generating DC current. The stronger the light, the greater the flow of electricity.

A photovoltaic system does not therefore need bright sunlight in order to operate. It also generates electricity on cloudy days, with its energy output proportionate to the density of the clouds. Due to the reflection of sunlight from clouds, days with a few clouds can even result in higher energy yields than days with a completely clear blue sky.

…

[abqmufc]

77. True but lets keep the complete cycle in ones bioregion.

I agree all energy has a byproduct, and most of those byproduct are not ideal to be adding into an ecosystem. However, I will argue that it is rather selfish of humans to have the rewards of power from nuclear and then ship the waste to NV. I'll again use my birth state of IL. IL has 13 power plants, yet they think the waste should be in NV, and on its way to NV go through several states. Risk Assessment models show some towns, like Flagstaff, AZ would be a high risk b/c 90% of all waste shipments would go right through the middle of town on rail lines. Is this right?

We have to move (what ever the source of energy is) to a bioregional approach where the source, the production and waste disposal are all dealt with within the bioregion. If the people of that bioregion vote for nuclear, great, but they deal with the waste themselves.

[OKIsItJustMe]

78. Sadly, in the case of nuclear, they may not be able to keep it to themselves

Oops! :blush:

[abqmufc]

82. So true, hence my stance no nuke(s) (power)

I've seen reports of release from Hanford facility during its operation (both as weapons development and power) lots of releases, and backwards trajectory modeling shows it impacted an area from Seattle to N. CA across to MT and down to NV. Granted it may have not caused deaths....but it has made me think twice about Washington apples, as most are grown around Richland, WA.