US Eyes Nuclear Power to Meet Growing Energy Demands

VOA ^ | Aug. 30, 2006 | Stephanie Ho

[FairOpinion]

As U.S. demand for energy continues to grow, a top American nuclear official says the United States is seriously considering stepping up its reliance on nuclear power. As Nuclear power already accounts for 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply.

The last nuclear plant to open in the United States was 10 years ago. The new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dale Klein, indicated that since U.S. demand for electricity remains strong, nuclear power generation is once again a serious option.

"But one of the reasons in the United States that we're looking at building new nuclear plants is because the electrical demand is growing, concern on global warning and the unpredictability of fossil fuel costs," he added.

Other countries that have significant nuclear energy generating programs include France, Japan, Russia and Germany.

[FairOpinion]

It's high time.

We should use nuclear power for just about all of our electricity needs, and only use oil to power our cars. I bet we have enough domestic oil for that. Then we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil.

[T.L.Sink]

Yes, it's high time. I think for a long time public opinion lagged behind actuality. Too many people only thought of that old Jack Lemmon movie "China Syndrome" or the Three Mile Island accident when they thought of nuclear energy.

Most don't realize how much progress in safety and technology has been made since those days. Your post mentioned France. I think for years now their source of energy has been 70% nuclear.

[Cobra64]

The new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dale Klein, indicated that since U.S. demand for electricity remains strong, nuclear power generation is once again a serious option.

What cave has this jerk been hiding in for the last 30 years. It takes YEARS to build a nuke plant. Don't these fools understan planning?

[Myrddin]

We make a small fraction of our electricity needs from oil, but a shift from oil to nuclear would be a significant benefit from the air quality perspective. See link. Nuclear based electricity would enable the hydrogen/electric type of car to help reduce the need for oil as a transportation fuel. It isn't a cure-all. We still need oil for big trucks, trains, airplanes, fertilizers, ships, plastics, medicine and a long list of others. It is a feed stock for so much more than just motor fuel.

Nuclear based electricity would also enable a move from use of home heating oil to electricity. Much of that oil would be usable in the trucking industry.

[endthematrix]

Not to mention BILLION$

[SoldierDad]

Uh oh. The Iranians will complain that we are enriching uranium for other than energy production.

[DoughtyOne]

Count me as a supporter of that also. I'd even say that when it comes to short distances, we could use electric cars to commute to work and save even more oil. I would do so.

I'm one guy who wants us off the Middle-East oil tit ASAP!

We'll see how much trouble those guys make when they can't sell a barrel of oil for more than $1.25.

[backhoe]

I have covered, ( Or, as Seamole calls it...-backhoe's pseudoblog--...-more- ) pseudo-blogged, this issue for years-- My tongue-in-cheek collection of energy-related links:

Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Click the picture:

And kindly note, and note well-- the first reply to this post ( when gas was $1.45 a gallon ) was snarky... so, who's laughing now?

Vest-Pocket Summary:

1- drill for gas and oil like crazy- onshore, offshore, and in Alaska
2- go nuclear for power
3- convert stationary plants to clean coal technology or Next-Gen Nuclear
4- slash taxes and regulations like crazy

Our consumer-based economy is driven by and dependent upon readily-available, reliable energy-- choke that off, and we'll all be back to using one rotary dial phone in the dining room, watching one TV in the living room, and driving one car per family-- probably a Hudson Hornet or a Nash Metropolitan...

We need to

1) end the nonsensical ban on offshore drilling off California and Florida--read and weep:
Castro Plans to Drill 45 Miles from US Shores, But We Can't

2) build a lot of next-generation nuclear power plants, not just for electricity, but for any process requiring heat, power, or steam.
And if we replaced our existing nuclear plants with this one... there would be significant benefits.

3) end Jimmy Carter's idiotic ban on recycling nuclear waste, and reprocess the stuff rather than fighting over where to bury it. Europe has done this for decades.-- what to do with spent nuclear fuel? Answer here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468321/posts?page=50#50  Hattip: Mike (former Navy Nuclear Engineer)

4) use the 300-500 years worth of coal we have on our own land, using the new clean-coal technology.
-Clean Coal Centre--

5) and finally, there's nothing wrong with conservation, we should all practice it- but you can't conserve your way out of a shortage. You have to produce more. Nor is there anything wrong with "alternative" energy sources- except they don't supply the vast ( not to mention readily-available and affordable ) amounts of power we need at a price competitive to more conventional sources.

Then again, there is this to ponder:

Energy from the Restless Sea

Energy From the Gulf Stream
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/mhoover.pdf

More:
Tidal energy farm proposed for Vineyard Sound

We do need to get serious about this before a gang of petty thugs strangles our economy for good. Remember the 1973 Arab oil embargo?

[upchuck]

Only one thing stands between the current situation and deriving 100% of our electricity needs from nuclear.

Same thing that's been standing in the way for the last 20 years.

Same thing that currently stands in the way of drilling ANWR, and off the coast.

Same thing that currently stands in the way of building desperately needed oil refineries.

Liberal Environazis!

Unfortunately, if they all just went away today, it would be at least five years before we could see benefits and probably 20 years before we'd be fully up to speed.

[Hardastarboard]

Wow!!! Dude! Somebody who actually understands the energy situation. You're as rare as a unicorn.

[coloradan]

I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking about TMI when considering nuclear power. I mean, here's a MAJOR nuclear power plant disaster and: nobody dies, the containment vessel holds the core, the radioactive release is minor, and the rest of the plant continues operating normally. And that's for a MAJOR disaster. Admittedly, the anti-nuclear zealots will claim that 100s or 1000s of cancer deaths will occur over the future because of the leak, but even if that were true and not shrill hyperbole as is typical from them, it would have to be compared with the deaths due to refinery fires and, of course, GLOBAL WARMING that didn't happen because fossil fuels weren't processed and consumed in the course of generating that electricity. (I don't happen to subscribe to the global warming hysteria, but the Greenies who do have to present a response to the fact that nuclear power does NOT put greenhouse gasses in the air, and therefore doesn't contribute to global warming as they understand it.)

The kind of disaster Chernobyl was could never happen here, because we don't build plants like that. That said, if Three Mile Island was a major disaster, Chernobyl was a global catastrophe - and was responsible for the deaths of about 45 people, with maybe a 100 more over the future due to leukemia. That is, worth about the same number of deaths of one serious coal mine collapse.

I wonder what the anti-nuclear zealots think about this paper: Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?

[thackney]

We should use nuclear power for just about all of our electricity needs, and only use oil to power our cars. I bet we have enough domestic oil for that.

We use very little petroleum for our electrical generation. We could produce enough domestic oil to cover our transportation needs but we allow environmentalists and democrats to hold us hostage and fund our enemies.

Petroleum Flow, 2005

[RightWhale]

What is the count of new US nuke plants begun? Last number I saw was eight.

[Non-Sequitur]

If they're going to do that then they also need to get off their asses and get that spent fuel repository out west up and running. A secure central location for storage is badly needed.

[G Larry]

In my 1980 Master's Thesis I wrote "Energy Plan for the U.S.", which outlined a development and transition through the year 2005.

Nuclear "could" SAFELY be providing 80% of our electricity needs today.
The waste disposal issue is political, not technical.

[Mogollon]

Yes, it's high time. I think for a long time public opinion lagged behind actuality. Too many people only thought of that old Jack Lemmon movie "China Syndrome" or the Three Mile Island accident when they thought of nuclear energy.

Last I heard, there has been more people die in drunken Ted Kennedy's oldsmobile than as a result of radiation from a U.S. nuclear power plant.

[hinckley buzzard]

Probably the biggest environmental benefit of nuclear generation of electricity would be the replacement of billions of tons of coal currently being burned. Also, it would free up great quantities of natural gas for vehicles, whatever.

[Prost1]

"It takes YEARS to build a nuke plant."

Just what does this rant mean?

If we started 20 nuclear plants, they would be complete in 5 years and we could provide electrical power to 80% of the population.

(my figures, others may differ)

[Cobra64]

Just what does this rant mean?

If we started 20 nuclear plants, they would be complete in 5 years and we could provide electrical power to 80% of the population.

(my figures, others may differ)

If you read my entire post; I mentioned planning. Based on your reply, we are in agreement. I manage very large long term projects. Politicians do not understand planning.

[Myrddin]

Natural gas is a viable vehicle fuel. Already in use, easier to deploy than hydrogen and better practical range than electric. We have a 500 year supply of coal on U.S. soil. It is viable for electrical generation, but does have the downside of emitting a fair amount of mercury into the air.