How many people are for nuclear power now, but were against it before?

[Armstead]

Just wonderin'

[babylonsister]

1. What's the alternative? nt

[kristopher]

8. Here is a peer reviewed evaluation

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.

See also:
The Nuclear Illusion
Report or White Paper, 2008
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion
This paper challenges the view that nuclear power is competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and affordable. The
authors explain why nuclear power is uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete.

Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential
Journal or Magazine Article, 2006
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-14_NuclearPowerEconomicsClimateProtection
This paper makes an economic argument against the use of nuclear power. The authors argue that, despite strong
governmental support, nuclear power is unfinancible in the private capital market.

Nuclear Nonsense
Journal or Magazine Article, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-10_NuclearNonsense
Stewart Brand’s book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a chapter claiming that new nuclear power plants are
essential and desirable, and that a global “nuclear renaissance” is booming. In this book review, Amory Lovins’
review finds fatal flaws in the chapter’s facts and logic.

[zulchzulu]

13. Thanks... good stuff... n/t

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

80. I'll take the nuke option over that corn ethanol scam. Who thought it would be a

good idea to turn food into fuel?

[kristopher]

85. That is consistent with the evaluation but they are both poor choices so...

why choose either one?

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Not me.

Actually, I was surprised at the applause. :shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

3. I was a fence sitter on nuclear power, and I still am. nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Never liked it, still don't....

and I'm French! :shrug:

[wroberts189]

5. I go with Al Gore ... too many problems. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. If I had Al Gore's portfolio, I'd be against nuclear too (and oil & gas & coal...)

Just sayin' :hide:

[rcrush]

74. +1

[kristopher]

77. Do you reject anthropogenic global warming and the threat it poses?

If so, what does "AL Gore's portfolio" have to do with his work?

What precisely is his "portfolio" geared to accomplish and what does it pay Al Gore personally?

If you DON'T accept anthropogenic global warming then you are at the wrong forum.

[wroberts189]

83. Why would someone invest their money into something they do not believe in?

And also imagine the RW finding out he had holdings in coal/nuclear companies? They would attack and attack.

In his recent testimony to the senate he outlines in clear detail the problems ..and there are many.

The main one I do not like is the waste which has to be kept in cool water and can be used for bombs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I've thought that wind and solar power would be more cost effective.

But now that it'll piss off Obama haters as well as the woo woos, I'm all for it.

[Duende azul]

31. Yes. That's how positions are taken.

Good to see some rational thinking at work on this highly emotional issue. Kudos to you.

The only byproduct of your energy choice would be that besides pissing off "Obama haters as well as the woo woos", it will make republicans happy.
But that may be a price worth paying for the good cause.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. No, you misunderstand.

I'm favoring it because it'll piss Republicans off.

I said so in my post.

[Duende azul]

68. How exactly did you state in your post that nuclear pisses republicans of?

Maybe I'm a little dense on this one?

Or did I misunderstand you completely and the thing you are now really favouring is not nuclear?

Please help me understand.

[zulchzulu]

7. I was against it... then for it... but now really against it... but not for obvious reasons...

Building a nuclear power plant takes 10-15 years to build, costs millions of dollars and then takes even a few more years to get online on the grid. Utility companies can get subsidies to build these monstrosities and the taxpayer pays as well as the costs to build the plants get further added to your monthly energy bills.

We're not even talking about nuclear waste as a byproduct. We're not even talking about the years of siting negotiations.

Compare that to wind farms, which can be up and running and on the grid in less than three years at a fraction of the cost. The byproduct is perhaps a few dead birds.

[angryfirelord]

14. But nuclear is better in the long term

Yes, it has high start-up costs, but it usually pays for itself over the life cycle of the plant. It's also very scalable to demand and can provide a consistent amount of power. Whereas with wind, the power is variable and no one wants them near their backyards because of the noise. Plus, since they're mechanical, they're going to need maintenance and they can be dangerous to maintain due to how high they are off the ground.

Personally, I still think a nuclear and solar combination is better. Nuclear can be used for large scale projects and until solar cells get cheaper for big solar farms, you can use some small scale projects on homes and buildings to feed back into the grid.

[uppityperson]

19. Nuke plants will need maintenance and can be dangerous tomaintain also.

Not to mention the issue of byproducts. I don't see wind power generators as having the same long term storage issue of byproducts.

That is my main beef with nuke power.

[kristopher]

20. What matters

What matters is the cost of the power from the relative power plants - which reflects the cost to build and operate them.

1
Nuclear Nonsense

I have known Stewart Brand as a friend for many years. I have admired his original and
iconoclastic work, which has had significant impact. In his new book, Whole Earth Discipline:
an Ecopragmatist Manifesto (Viking), he argues that environmentalists should change their
thinking about four issues—population, nuclear power, genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
and urbanization. Many people have asked me to assess his 41-page chapter on nuclear power, so
I’ll do that here, because I believe its conclusions are greatly mistaken.

Stewart recently predicted I wouldn’t accept his nuclear reassessment. He is quite right. His
nuclear chapter’s facts and logic do not hold up to scrutiny. Over the past few years I’ve sent him
five technical papers focused mainly on nuclear power’s comparative economics and
performance; he says he’s read them, and on p. 98 he even summarizes part of their economic
thesis. Yet on p. 104 he says, “We Greens are not economists” and disclaims knowledge of
economics, saying environmentalists use it only as a weapon to stop projects. Today most
dispassionate analysts think new nuclear power plants’ deepest flaw is their economics. They
cost too much to build and incur too much financial risk. My writings show why nuclear
expansion therefore can’t deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection,
because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times slower, than
investing in efficiency and micropower.

That conclusion rests on empirical data about how much new nuclear electricity actually costs
relative to decentralized and efficiency competitors, how these alternatives compare in capacity
and output added per year, and which can most effectively save carbon. Stewart’s chapter says
nothing about any of these questions, but I believe they’re at the heart of the matter. If nuclear
power is unneeded, uncompetitive, or ineffective in climate protection, let alone all three, then
we need hardly debate whether its safety and waste issues are resolved, as he claims.

In its first half-century, nuclear power fell short of its forecast capacity by about 12-fold in the
U.S. and 30-fold worldwide, mainly because building it cost severalfold more than expected,
straining or bankrupting its owners. The many causes weren’t dominated by U.S. citizen
interventions and lawsuits, since nuclear expectations collapsed similarly in countries without
such events; even France suffered a 3.5-fold rise in real capital costs during 1970–2000. Nor did
the Three Mile Island accident halt U.S. orders: they’d stopped the previous year. Rather,
nuclear’s key challenge was soaring capital cost, and for some units, poor performance.
Operational improvements in the ’90s made the better old reactors relatively cheap to run, but
Stewart’s case is for building new ones. Have their economics improved enough to prevent a
rerun?

On the contrary, a 2003 MIT study found new U.S. nuclear plants couldn’t compete with new
coal- or gas-fired plants. Over the next five years, nuclear construction costs about tripled. Was
this due to pricey commodities like steel and concrete? No; those totaled less than one percent of
total capital cost. Were citizen activists again to blame? No; they’d been neutralized by
streamlined licensing, adverse courts, and Federal “delay insurance.” The key causes seem to be
bottlenecked supply chains, atrophied skills, and a weak U.S. dollar—all widening the cost gap
between new nuclear power and its potent new competitors.
2

Today’s main alternatives aren’t limited to giant power plants burning coal or natural gas.
Decentralized sources provide from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in a dozen
industrial countries and, together with more efficient use, deliver the majority of the world’s new
electrical services. Booming orders did lately raise wind-turbine and photovoltaic prices too, but
they’re headed back down as capacity catches up; PVs got one-fourth cheaper just in the past
year, and reactor-scale PV farms compete successfully in California power auctions. New U.S.
windfarms—“firmed” to provide reliable power even if becalmed—sell electricity at less than
typical wholesale prices, or at a third to a half the cost utilities project for new nuclear plants.

Rather than viewing nuclear power within this real-world competitive landscape, Stewart simply
waves away its competitors. He praises efficient use of electricity, but rejects it because he says
it can’t by itself replace all coal and power all global development. He also dismisses wind and
solar power, and omits small hydro, geothermal, waste/biomass combustion, all other
renewables, and cogeneration. Yet worldwide these sources make more electricity than nuclear
power does, and for the past three years, have won about 10–25 times its market share and added
about 20–40 times more capacity each year.

The world in 2008 invested more in renewable power than in fossil-fueled power. Why? Because
renewables are cheaper, faster, vaster, equally or more carbon-free, and more attractive to inves-
tors. Worldwide, distributed renewables in 2008 added 40 billion watts and got $100 billion of
private investment; nuclear added and got zero, despite its far larger subsidies and generally
stronger government support. From August 2005 to August 2008, with new subsidies equivalent
to 100+% of construction cost and with the most robust nuclear politics and capital markets in
history, the 33 proposed U.S. nuclear projects got not a cent of private equity investment.

Nonetheless, Stewart rejects all non-nuclear options, for four fallacious reasons:

• Baseload: Wind and photovoltaics can’t keep the lights on because they can’t run 24/7.
• Footprint: Photovoltaics need about 150–175 times, and windfarms from 600+ to nearly
900 times, more land than nuclear power to produce the same electricity.
• Portfolio: We need every tool for combating climate change, including nuclear power.
• Government role: The climate imperative trumps economics, so governments everywhere
must and will do what France did—ensure that nuclear power gets built, regardless of
economics or dissent.

I believe each claim is unsupportable:

• Baseload. The electricity system doesn’t rely on any plant’s ability to run continuously;
rather, all plants together supply the grid, and the grid serves all loads. That’s necessary
because no kind of power plant can run all the time, as Stewart says they must do to meet
steady loads. I repeat: there is not and has never been a need for any particular plant or
kind of plant to run all the time, and none can. All power plants fail, varying only in their
failures’ size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Solar cells’ and windpower’s
variation with night and weather is no different from the intermittence of coal and nuclear
plants, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and
3
is no harder and probably easier and cheaper to manage. In short, the ability to serve
steady loads is a statistical attribute of all plants on the grid, not an operational
requirement for one plant. Variability (predictable failure) and intermittence (unpredic-
table failure) must be managed by diversifying type and location, forecasting, and
integrating with other resources. Utilities do this every day, balancing diverse resources
to meet fluctuating demand and offset outages. Even with a largely (or probably a
wholly) renewable grid, this is not a significant problem or cost, either in theory or in
practice—as illustrated by areas that are already 30–40% windpowered.
• Footprint. Stewart understates nuclear power’s land-use by about 43-fold by omitting all
land used by exclusion zones and the nuclear fuel chain. Conversely, he includes the
space between wind or solar equipment—unused land commonly used for farming,
grazing, wildlife, and recreation. That’s like claiming that the area of the lampposts in a
parking lot is the area of the parking lot, even though 99% of it is used for parking,
driving, and walking. Properly measured, per kilowatt-hour produced, the land made
unavailable for other uses is about the same for ground-mounted photovoltaics as for
nuclear power, sometimes less—or zero for building-mounted PVs sufficient to power
the world many times over. Land actually used per kWh is up to thousands of times
smaller for windpower than for nuclear power. If land-use were an important criterion for
picking energy systems, which it’s generally not, it would thus reverse Stewart’s footprint
conclusion.
• Portfolio. The one paper he cites as proof that we need all energy options actually says
the opposite. There is no analytic basis for his conclusion, and there’s strong science to
the contrary. We can’t afford to stuff our energy portfolio indiscriminately with some of
everything, and we shouldn’t: some options are less worthy and effective than others. The
more you fear climate change, the more judiciously you should invest to get the most
solution per dollar and per year. Nuclear flunks both these tests.
• Government. If nuclear power isn’t needed, worsens climate change (vs. more effective
solutions) and energy security, and can’t compete in the marketplace despite uniquely big
subsidies—all evidence-based findings unexamined in Stewart’s chapter—then his
nuclear imperative evaporates. Of course, a few countries with centrally planned energy
systems, mostly with socialized costs, are building reactors: over two-thirds of all nuclear
plants under construction are in China, Russia, India, or South Korea. But that’s more
because their nuclear bureaucracies dominate national energy policy and face little or no
competition in technologies, business models, and ideas. Nuclear power requires such a
system. The competitors beating nuclear power thrive in democracies and free markets.

Stewart’s reputation and his valuable prior contributions to clear thinking for a better world may
win his nuclear views some attention. Yet judged on its merits, not his history, this nuclear chap-
ter’s assertions can only worsen climate and security risks.
—Amory B. Lovins
Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org)
13 October 2009

Supporting details are at www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.pdf,
This review was first published 14 October 2009 at www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-stewart-
brands-nuclear-enthusiasm-falls-short-on-facts-and-logic/.

[Duende azul]

30. The problem of nuclear is mainly longterm.

Plutonium and other byproducts will not go away.
There will be a constant burden to keep it save for all the generations to come.
Not only costs but security issues. We will end up with a policy state to avoid proliferation.

It's a non revocable decision.
And failure will be catastrophic.

If we err at placing windpower, so what?
The windmills will be dissembled in a few weeks work and leave no residue at the site.

[lib_wit_it]

89. Only if this guy is right:

Meet the Man Who Could End Global Warming

Nuclear power — dangerous, right? And there's nowhere to put the nuclear waste, right? Eric Loewen is the evangelist of the sodium fast reactor, which burns nuclear waste, emits no CO2, and might just save the world.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/nuclear-waste-disposal-1209#ixzz0dyqcUIDb

[TankLV]

38. WE pay for nukular energy - IT DOES NOT "PAY FOR ITSELF"!!!!

NO private insurance companies will touch the thing - hence WE pay for ALL insurance and the looming CLEANUP!!!

NO nukular plant is "profitable" - it all ends up costing the rate and us TAXPAYERS - BILLIONS!!!

[Oregone]

9. Better than clean coal

:)

[zulchzulu]

11. Not really...

Once sequestration of carbon gases is controlled, clean coal technology certainly would be a hell of a lot better than the costs of ramping up a nuclear power plant, which takes millions of dollars to make and even longer to get on the energy grid.

[kristopher]

That's billions - more than 10 of them... nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. Only in the sense

that neither clean coal nor safe nuclear power actually exist. Though clean coal may be theoretically possible.

Nuclear power? Yeah right. And then we can start a bunch of new wars in countries that have uranium, using the convenient "Al Qaeda" bullshit justification. On top of the waste problem, of course.

Don't suppose the cheerleaders (who suddenly became fans of nuclear power ) would volunteer their back yard or basement as a nuclear waste dump?

[krispos42]

49. And Iran conveniently has lots of uranium

Bet the neocons love that little factoid.

[marlakay]

10. Can we put the waste in all the red states??

just kidding...

really where is it suppose to go?? and whats with the clean coal? there is no such thing!

[boppers]

12. Sunlight good. Stars good.

Irrational fear of atomic isotopes bad.

Our *biggest* nuclear power source has been running since long before humans existed.

[Sugarcoated]

15. Against.

Cancer rates are higher for people who live near them. FAIL

[Grinchie]

16. We need to smoke more in order to quit smoking...

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." BO

This man is absolutely insane.

Not to worry, Monsanto will be there to give him a hand job and to assure him that the superiority of America's untested Biotech Industry is penultimate.

The SOTU address tonight was the most sickening piece of drivel I have ever seen. And Dubya couldn't have done much worse.

So long America, it was fun while it dragged on and on.

[depakid]

17. There's no free lunch- all forms of energy production have their externalities

Nuclear power having milder externalities than many other forms that are currently relied on- or advocated (including some renewables).

[kristopher]

21. Comparing the externalities of nuclear to renewables

Is like comparing an amputation to a hangnail.

[depakid]

22. Far from it

Toxic materials required to manufacture photovoltaic cells (and all that goes with them) are spread far and wide- and it's damn nasty stuff.

[kristopher]

48. It is routinely recycled back into the process and the economy with no harm.

In other words it is a problem that is easily and economically solvable.

Comparing the environmental externalities of nuclear power to any renewable is like comparing an amputation to a hangnail and you can't spin that away.

[avaistheone1]

54. *Agreed.If nuclear power is so safe why is that industry trying to force taxpayers to pay $40Billion

for their insurance? Hmm?

[depakid]

79. That's beyond a distortion-

The unpleasant fact is that toxic materials like silicon tetrachloride, cadmium compounds and become more widely dispersed and present very real hazards to people and the environment every day.

Here's but one of many instances that illustrates the nature of the problem:

...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.

"The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.

The situation in Li's village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.

Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.

Likewise in China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.....

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

As I said- no free lunch (except in some cases, passive solar).

[kristopher]

84. You are peddlling the usual nuclear lobby Horseshit.

You are trying to hide the essential difference - the by products of producing solar can be effectively, safely and economically recycled. In fact it is actually CHEAPER to recycle it than to throw it away and buy more of the raw material it is recycled into.

Even the most optimistic, still science-fiction concepts for dealing with nuclear wastes leaves them as a severe environmental hazard for what is (in terms of human culture) forever.

Comparing the external environmental costs of renewables to nuclear is like comparing a hangnail to an amputation.

If you had the facts on your side you wouldn't need to try so hard to misrepresent the truth.

[burning rain]

18. For it previously, for it now.

.

[Meldread]

23. I was for it before, and I am still supportive.

Obviously, nuclear power has it's issues, and since those issues are serious I'd rather more traditional renewable technologies receive first dibs at funding. On the other hand, I believe that most of the problems and issues with nuclear power can be overcome with the right research investments. There are a lot of opportunities, and if the government would make it a priority I am certain we can overcome the problems of nuclear power.

But even if we cannot, the other technologies - such as solar and wind - have not demonstrated their ability to scale to our nations energy demands. Demands that will only continue to grow. I challenge someone to show me a sizable nation of at least 10 million that has managed to use solar, wind, and other such technologies to meet roughly 80% of their energy needs. I can show you France, which has the bulk of it's energy needs taken care of through nuclear power. If it's good enough for France, then it's good enough for America.

[OutNow]

24. No Nukes Then, No Nukes Now

I worked in the power plant engineering industry back in the 1970s. We did consulting for both nuclear and fossil power plants. After the space program fell apart there were many aerospace engineers that retrained for electrical engineering, etc. and ended up working on power plant designs.

Their background in "safety consciousness" learned in the space program was sorely tested in their new profession. Leaking pipes, failed stress tests, poor electronic record keeping - I could go on, but you get the idea.

And then there was Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. I lived downwind. We took our kids to New England for safety.

Maybe I'll go hunt for my old No Nukes record album recorded at a sold out concert in 1979. I have a feeling we'll be singing some of those songs again.

NO NUKES

[jgraz]

26. No on fission, but there's no reason we shouldn't be full speed ahead on fusion research

Just another thing 30 years of conservative presidents has set us back on.

[Raine]

27. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not ever

will I be for it.

edit: corrected spelling on one word.

[AnOhioan]

28. Against it then, against it now

[Jennicut]

29. Been for it since I read about James Lovelock and his Gaia theory

a few years ago. Instant alternative energy.

[vaberella]

32. I'm going to look for that online. Thanks for mentioning this b/c I'm not necessarily for it. n/t

[Jennicut]

39. He says it is way too late to wait for other alernative energy

I think he is correct.

[kristopher]

50. He isn't correct.

Renewables scale up faster than nuclear. It takes nearly 20 years to bring a nuclear plant online and it costs far, far more than the getting the equivalent amount of delivered power from renewables. There are several detailed, peer reviewed analysis showing this.

If you want to slow the response to climate change support nuclear.

Here is a recent comprehensive analysis that covers all aspects other than cost - it included how long it takes to deploy each technology.

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.

[Ganja Ninja]

33. I served on a nuclear sub.

Four years ago I had to have half my thyroid removed. I'm not real thrilled about nuclear power but I still think we will need a certain amount of it as a percentage of our overall power generating capability.

[DeadEyeDyck]

82. were you a nuclear operator or forward sailor?

What boat were you on?

[Ganja Ninja]

93. SSBN 630 USS John C Calhoun.

I was a Torpedoman working in the missile compartment. They didn't monitor for radon regularly but once when they did we had radon levels so high that we had to surface and emergency ventilate the boat. The tritium monitor was constantly going off too but they always claimed it didn't work right.

[S_E_Fudd]

34. New generation Thorium reactors...

Might make it financially feasible...

[kristopher]

51. Nope.

"New" Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story
By Amory B. Lovins
Originally published in Solutions Journal, Spring 2009
The dominant type of new nuclear power plant, light-water reactors (LWRs), proved unfinanceable in the robust 2005–08 capital market, despite new U.S. subsidies approaching or exceeding their total construction cost. New LWRs are now so costly and slow that they save 2–20× less carbon, 20–40× slower, than micropower and efficient end-use. As this becomes evident, other kinds of reactors are being proposed instead — novel designs claimed to solve LWRs problems of economics, proliferation, and waste. Even climate-protection pioneer Jim Hansen says these “Gen IV” reactors merit rapid R&D.3 But on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted — Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors — reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale, and the thesis is unsound for any nuclear reactor.

[retread]

58. "...closer examination..."????

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[kristopher]

75. What is your conclusion from the article at the link?

It doesn't addresses the cost of building new facilities at all, which is the primary point of the Lovins article. I'm also unsure of benefits as they relate to the issue of proliferation and exactly how clean it is compared to alternatives. If you are pointing to the idea of converting the existing fleet of reactors, and *if* that proves to be an economically viable proposition when compared to the renewable alternatives, then it would seem like a good idea. However given the track record of the nuclear industry, I would want a strong body of independent data and analysis before endorsing the proposition.

[S_E_Fudd]

67. How about a link ...

[kristopher]

73. How about you let your fingers do the walking through Google.

I gave you the title, author and publication. If you want to read it it is easy to find.

[S_E_Fudd]

96. Common courtesy when referencing something...

I did find it and I find it unconvincing

[BennyD]

35. Didn't used to be for it, but I am now. n/t

[LWolf]

36. I'm against it now, was against it before. nt

[TankLV]

37. Just as long as YOU keep YOUR fucking WASTE out of MY backyard...

I don't care what cat box you live in if you think nukuler energy is "clean"...

[freddie mertz]

40. Still against. And F$#@ "Clean Coal" too.

Worst part of the speech.

[RoadRage]

41. I need to learn more about it..

I live in NE and we have a Nuc. Power Plant.. never had any problems. It's what to do with the "Waste" that I don't have an answer for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I remain strongly opposed n/t

[QC]

43. Probably about as many people as those who used to think that insurance mandates were bad

but now think they are the greatest thing since peanut butter and jelly.

[Overseas]

45. Still against nuclear power that but glad to support the nuclear arms reduction. //nt

[Kaleva]

46. Didn't oppose it before...don't oppose it now.

[phleshdef]

47. In the grand scheme of things, I don't see how it could kill more people than oil has.

I've always been open minded about it. I don't believe in clean coal though.

[avaistheone1]

52. No thanks - unless we can put the waste in your backyard.

And you are willing to pay $40billion in insurance for the greedy nuclear plant profiteers.

[timeforpeace]

55. Always wondered if we wouldn't have turned the tide on global warming back in the 70's if we had

gone to nuclear power plants.

[harun]

56. I've always been for it.

[retread]

57. I used to be unequivocally opposed to spending even a penny on fission. Now I would support public

funded research into thorium.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[iceman66]

59. I've been for it.

It has been used very successfully in Europe for many years.

[retread]

62. How "successful" have the French, for instance, been in solving their disposal problems?

Answer -- they HAVE NOT solved it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

[iceman66]

63. This would be much less of a problem here.

A lot more empty space in the US than France.

[retread]

70. 1/2 life is the same though. n/t

[CBR]

60. Never for it, still not for it but prefer it strongly to "clean coal" policies. nt

[barbiegeek]

61. I flipped & support it now, we're on the verge on discoverying how to recycle the waste in2 energy

Now, some places in America like here in the midwest & the west DON'T have a large enough population to need nuclear power. We can survive with wind and hydroelectric.

Southern Cal with it's earthquakes shouldn't have nuclear power plants on fault lines. They should have a grid hookup to massive solar power in the Mohave desert.

We should ALSO nationalize our oil and gas reserves like Norway--no private companies.

[Blue_In_AK]

64. No, I'm still against it.

[Posteritatis]

65. For before, for now. (nt)

[atmame77]

66. Too many unanswered questions.

Too many idiots who don't know what they're taking about.
1. Where's the wast going to put?
2. Uranium ore is going to run out before oil(especially if there's a 100% more nuclear plants).
3. Do any of you dolts know what Thorium is and what it can be used for?

I've found that most pro nuclear idiots don't even know what Thorium is.
I could go over to the dark side and give a better argument than they can.

Breeder Reactors! That's the only way Nuclear power can continue it's highly subsidized madness.

And Here's the kicker. It produces weapon's grade uranium. Let's spread this around the world
and see what happens to this sick species.

"This reactor will have two separate breeding blankets. One will be rods of thorium to breed U233 in (the radial blanket), and the other will be composed of depleted uranium (in the outer 40% of each core fuel pin) to breed Pu239 (the axial blanket).

The reactor will thus “launder” the MOX plutonium into supergrade Pu AND produce vast amounts of U233 bomb material. The blanket supergrade Pu may also be blended with large amounts of the core’s reactor-grade Pu, producing enormous amounts of ordinary weapons-grade Pu – essentially a superpower-sized atomic arsenal from a single core load.

The U233 produced from the thorium blanket is a superb bomb material. A weapon can be created just by DROPPING a subcritical mass from a few feet onto another subcritical mass."

[gauguin57]

69. Against it when I marched against in 1979; against it now. I live near TMI.

I don't doubt it would be cleaner than other power sources. But you will NEVER convince me it can be made totally safe (because of the Human Bozo Factor) ... and the threat of the problems that will be with us for generations after THE INEVITABLE happens is just too big a risk.

Just ask us here in southcentral PA ... where we get periodic news stories of security breaches and employees playing cards or sleeping when they're supposed to be operating or guarding the damned plants(not just at nearby Three Mile Island but at nearby Peach Bottom nuclear plant).

They just tell those of us within 10 miles of the plants to line up for our latest medicine-cabinet supply of potassium iodide pills every once in a while. I feel SOOOOO secure. Not.

[MISSDem]

71. Not for it until they can say what they will

do with the left overs from its use.

[timeforpeace]

72. Wasn't sure, but if the President thinks it's OK then so do I. Solves a lot of problems.

[Yuugal]

76. K&R

Seems you got unrecced all to hell. Doesn't surprise me these days. We have lots of newly incarnated war-mongers here, nuclear and coal people, corporocrats, you name it.

[dionysus]

78. i'm still not keen on it myself.

[underpants]

81. I just don't want to pay for it

all nuclear power plants built in this country have been built by taxpayers money, paid back yes but over time and at unbelieveable rates

[David Zephyr]

86. So how about you, Armstead?

You posed the question. I'm curious.

[Armstead]

88. I'd be all for it if it wasn't radioactive.

:)

But my father in the Navy was walking around Nagisaki a few days after the A bomb, and look how well I turned out. So maybe a little radioactivity isn't so bad.


But more seriously, nuclear energy it scares the shit out of me, and it was also an expensive boondoggle before that really screwed up the energy economy. I can't se it would be any differnet this time.

[Ildem09]

87. i support new reactors

they are a ton more efficent and don't generate nearly as much waste product. it's only uranium thats messy there are a whole bunch more fissile material out there that isn't so messy

[dkf]

90. I don't see the point investing in any technology that depends on a depleting natural resource.

Solar and wind will never run out. Why build a plant based on a finite resource?

[quantass]

91. Nuclear FUSION, Geothermal, and Highly Efficient PV Cells n/t

[old mark]

92. Back in the old days, I used to be a factory planning designer/draftsman, and

was actually involved with minor work on the nuclear plant at Limerick, PA. I am not happy that they were ever built, BUT - the newer ones are probably as safe as they can be made, and the older ones are not unsafe in themselves. They already exist and do provide a lot of reliable power.
However, if they were just being proposed, I would never be in favor of building them, nor of building any new ones, for several reasons:

1. The waste problem is enormous and has never really been well thought out or resolved.
2. Despite the quality of design and construction, there is still some risk and the destructive potential is terrifying. And they are very tempting targets for terrorist attacks.
3. The idea is obsolete now - the entire nuclear plant, with all its safeguards, precautions, engineers, technicians, waste storage sites and transportation, and all other related expenses and problems exists to boil water!!! That is all it does - it boils water that is run through a turbine, that turns a generator that makes electricity.

To me, given the real advances in efficient power generation using solar, wind, etc, the nuclear plant is very extravagant over engineered and wasteful - it is a '50's and '60's idea of approaching the problem, and it is obsolete.

mark

[Forkboy]

94. No Nukes was what got me into politics.

Still against it, though that was more weapons related at the time.

[Renew Deal]

95. The problem for nuclear will always be that people want it, but not in their back yard.

I just don't see how new plants can be built within 100 miles of a populated area.

[Fla Dem]

97. Sure, let's go with nuke power, let's see which congressional supporter of nuclear power volunteers

to have a new nuke power plant in their district, or better yet store the waste material in their districts.