every few days.
Anti-nuclear people offer all sorts of fiat claims, billion dollars this, billion dollars that, so on and so on as if they cared about a billion dollars.
Point out that a single solar PV plant on the
energy scale of a single nuclear plant - would cost 14 billion dollars and we get one of these doleful accountings - which personally I regard as nonsensical.
I note that one trillion dollars would be insufficient to prevent carbon dioxide from causing global climate change. In fact 10 trillion dollars would probably be insufficient.
If it is true that Yucca Mountain cost 65 billion dollars, I note that the figure covers many decades of commercial nuclear power. There is no form of energy that could treat its alleged wastes so cheaply.
In any case, the matter has been decided. The world is building more nuclear power plants, 178 of them last count. The world is also buying some PV systems, but the world still has yet to produce an exajoule by such means.
Anyone who argues that solar PV can prevent nuclear power - or the environmentally worse coal and natural gas - plants by replacing them is invited to prove so by producing exajoules of energy in a safe and clean fashion. The Antarctic glaciers await the production of energy without greenhouse gas impact.
My position is exactly described by this account in
Nucleonics Week of April, 2000.
"I used to oppose nuclear plants . . . . I don’t oppose nuclear any more. bias unsupported by the facts." Moran <(D-Va.)> said he changed his mind after attending a conference on nuclear power put on by the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan organization that tries to facilitate frank discussions and consensus-building on controversial issues. Moran now believes the U.S. should increase its use of nuclear energy. Virginia Power’s nuclear plants are not in Moran’s district, but in a neighboring district. "I’ve gone down to North Anna," he said. "Virginia Power, they do a good job. They’ve got a beautiful lake down there. I’m convinced it’s plenty safe." Environmental concerns about nuclear power are "something of an anachronism" these days, based on advances in technology and improved performance.
Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), reported in Nucleonics Week, April 6, 2000
I also agree with President Clinton's Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson in the transcribed remarks I now produce:
QUESTION: I am doing a documentary on nuclear energy. Mr. Secretary, please forgive me for asking a very general question. In the United
States in the last decade, there have been no nuclear power plants
built and European countries like Germany are considering the closure
of nuclear plants. What do you see as the future of nuclear energy? Is
this the energy form of the 21st century?
SECRETARY RICHARDSON: Nuclear power accounts for nearly 20 percent of
the United States' electricity generation. We foresee that nuclear
power will remain an important component of our energy mix as we move
into the next millennium. Decisions on the future use of nuclear power
are going to continue to reside with our own electric utilities as
they plan to meet future energy needs in a cost-effective and
environmentally responsible manner. So the short answer is -- they
will remain as a viable option in our energy future.
Our ability to support nuclear power is possible because of the strong
oversight and safety record of our nuclear industry. We rely on a
strong regulatory regime overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-- the head of which, Dr. Shirley Jackson, is here for this meeting --
to ensure that nuclear power plants are operating in the safest manner
possible. Additionally, our department has supported the development
of advance reactors with enhanced safety features in hopes of
beginning additional activities through its nuclear energy research
initiative, which I just announced, to continue to address safety
issues.
Now, we do understand concern about the safety of some of the world's
oldest nuclear power plants, particularly those of Soviet design. To
address these concerns the United States, in cooperation with many
countries, supports efforts to improve the level of safety and
oversight at these plants and, where appropriate, to replace the
oldest and least safe reactors. We, the Department of Energy, are
currently working cooperatively with several countries in this area,
including Armenia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Russia,
Ukraine, Lithuania, and Kazakstan to improve operational safety and
regulatory oversight.
QUESTION: What about the energy form of the 21st century? I want to
know if you think nuclear energy will be the energy form of the 21st
century. It started off quite high in the '50s, how will this continue
in the 21st century?
UNDER SECRETARY ERNEST MONIZ: First, as the Secretary emphasized, we
are of course continuing to use nuclear power for a large part of our
activity now. But more significantly, I would point at two things he
mentioned. One is that we are, as a federal agency, providing the
options for use of nuclear power by, for example, introducing this new
research program which he mentioned -- NERI (Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative) -- which will look at advance reactor types which are
passively safe for proliferation, resistant, and waste minimizing. The
ultimate decisions, as he emphasized, will be market decisions. But
particularly in the context of something like climate change, one
certainly has to maintain the option, and we are doing that through
the new research program which he announced.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/98092106_wlt.htmlI look forward to the day when men like Bill Richardson can return to the administration of our energy future. We need them desperately. One hopes that such men
will return and that it will not be too little, too late.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
