Nuclear power gaining momentum in the US

Spero News ^ | July 5, 2008 | Nicolas Loris, Jack Spencer

[FocusNexus]

Nuclear power is gaining momentum in the United States as the nation seeks environmentally friendly and affordable sources of energy that can meet growing demand.

France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a net exporter of electricity.

Finland, ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources, Finland has begun constructing a modern 1,600-megawatt reactor, which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially.

Affordable energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies with high labor costs, expensive environmental mandates, and other regulatory expenditures. ... Finland concluded that access to vast quantities of affordable energy should be a top national priority, and nuclear was an obvious choice.

Although natural uranium is a finite resource like gas, oil, or coal, it can be recycled and reused. The French, Japanese, and British all recycle their used nuclear fuel. The French, for example, remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America can recycle its 58,000 tons of used fuel stored across the nation to power every U.S. household for 12 years.

The time has come for the U.S. to stop squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to meet its growing energy demands.

[FocusNexus]

If we had done what France did, after the oil crisis wake-up call in the 70-s, we could also satisfy 80% of our energy needs using nuclear, and use domestic oil for the remaining 20% and wouldn't have to be held hostage by OPEC -- but the Democrats and enviro-wackos prevented us from doing that and are still against nuclear energy.

Another thing that struck me from the article was that they mentioned that Finland is 5th (!) in per capita electricity consumption, so I looked up the ranking of the world's countries and found that the US is not 1st or 2nd as most of us would expect, but it's 9th!!! in per capita electricity consumption, less than half of the Iceland per capita electricity consumption. It shows FInalnd in 3rd plaace.

I got this info from Wikipedia, they state they got it from the 2008 CIA World Fact Book.

List of countries by electricity consumption

(Need to click on top of last column to get them ranked by poer per capita, vs. total)

1. Iceland 3,152W
2. Norway 2812 W
3. Finland 1918 W
4. Canada 1910 W
5. Qatar 1757 W
6. Sweden 1692 W
7. Luxenburg 1549 W
8. Kuwait 1540 W
9. United Stated 1460 W
10. Untied Arab Emirated 1335 W

So, considering that we are one of the top industrialized nations, we are already conserving a lot.

[fightinJAG]

Finland is 5th (!) in per capita electricity consumption, so I looked up the ranking of the world's countries and found that the US is not 1st or 2nd as most of us would expect, but it's 9th!!! in per capita electricity consumption, less than half of the Iceland per capita electricity consumption. It shows FInalnd in 3rd plaace.

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

[FocusNexus]

Here is another one, claims to be more recent and shows it in bar graph format, it shows per capita consuptoin per year. US is still only 9th.:

Energy Statistics > Electricity > Consumption (per capita) (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_percap-energy-electricity-consumption-per-capita

[U.S.overallothers]

this list is probably correct, but you also have to look behind the information

iceland, qatar, luxenburg, kuwait, united arab emirates are all relatively small countries but they all have huge industrial infrastructures
(small populations, big industry = large per capita energy use) however the people use less power than the U.S.

iceland = aluminum smelters
most others = oil industry

[bray]

If you like high electric bills, Thank Congress.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Dick Bachert]

PEBBLE BED BUMP!

[Rca2000]

We all have SO much to thank Hanoi Jane for, don’t we??

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I was wondering ? if and I mean a big IF ... if we were to be allowed to build new nuke plants in the USA.... could be build smaller ones, but more of them, build smaller ones that could take up less time to build to move us on the fast track to energy independence ?
I wish we could build smaller nuke plants that could take 2-3 years to build instead of larger ones that take 5 years to build.
To bad they can't use the mini nuclear reactors like in the Nimitz Aircraft carriers for small communities...... build these smaller nuclear reactors on military bases so as you would have the military protecting them.
Would the cost of building smaller nuclear reactors be more or less ? if you build more of them ?

[rlmorel]

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

Dick Bachert, you are right on the money. We need these things, and we need them now. Lots of them, modularly built, scalable and mass produced. These things can take advantage of radioactive waste that is just sitting in contained pools at places like Oak Ridge that cannot be used for anything else. They cannot be weaponized. They are safe. The South Africans and Chinese are going to be doing these things! WE SHOULD DO IT FIRST AND DO IT BETTER!

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

There. Now I have got it out of my system. I think...

[rottndog]

If Carter used and executive order to prevent reprocessing our spent fuel rods, can’t W revoke it?

[FocusNexus]

The Democrats keep saying we “can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis”.

We most definitely CAN, if we DRILL AND have serious incentives for power companies to build nuclear plants ASAP, lots of them.

What we can’t do is “conserve” our way out of it. Consumption is good, it helps the economy. And there is no reason not to be able to provide the supply of energy needed, if we use nuclear, which is reusable. We would not be the first by a long shot, the French are the leaders, I read France, a small country relative to the US has 58 nucler plants.

Just using our used fuel we could power the US for 12 years.

“The French, Japanese, and British all recycle their used nuclear fuel. The French, for example, remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America can recycle its 58,000 tons of used fuel stored across the nation to power every U.S. household for 12 years. “

[WHBates]

Nice idea but license approval for PBR is many many year away. I don't think that any domestic supplier is seriously considering PBR Exelon was toying with it a few years ago but I don't think they are currently considering the PBR (but I could be wrong). Because of the cost with the license process and state regulators Utilities have to think of larger scale plants. (1000 to 1600 MWE)

[OCC]

PEBBLE BED BUMP.

I’m with you guys on this technology. John McCain needs to promote this as a cornerstone to his energy policy. The generic “Nuclear Power” turns off to many people. He needs to get specific and explain the benefits as compared to 1970’s reactor technology.

[OCC]

Democrats/Republicans keep talking about an Apollo mission to the Moon type answer to our energy problems. Clearing the regulation/licensing path for PBR development would be a good start.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" Nice idea but license approval for PBR is many many year away "
And this is the great stumbling stone to our energy independeacne..... the Democrats/Liberals/Envirowackos

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" And this is the great stumbling stone to our energy independeacne..... the Democrats/Liberals/Envirowackos "
If John McCain is smart ... he would use this ( and the Republicans ) as a campaign theme.

[FocusNexus]

” And this is the great stumbling stone to our energy independeacne..... the Democrats/Liberals/Envirowackos “
If John McCain is smart ... he would use this ( and the Republicans ) as a campaign theme.”

Exactly. The Democrats keep saying they are for the working people and the “little guys” — well, those are the ones worst hit by the soaring gas prices, yet the Democrats still don’t want to SOLVE the crisis. McCain and the GOP could pound it home, that they have the solution: “Drill here, drill now, pay less” and remove obstacles from building nuclear plants. If the French could do it, why can’t we?

[neutronsgalore]

“Dick Bachert, you are right on the money. We need these things, and we need them now. Lots of them, modularly built, scalable and mass produced. These things can take advantage of radioactive waste that is just sitting in contained pools at places like Oak Ridge that cannot be used for anything else. They cannot be weaponized. They are safe. The South Africans and Chinese are going to be doing these things! WE SHOULD DO IT FIRST AND DO IT BETTER!”

And better yet, the heat generated by the latest PBR design can go as high as 1700 degrees. That allows the reactor to be used in place of the coal-fired boilers in the newer coal power plants. You can install the reactor module in the now unused coal storage yard and hook it up to the existing steam turbines. Once that’s up and running you remove the coal fired boilers and install new steam turbines and reactor modules. So not only do you convert the coal power plant to nuclear, re-directing the coal to coal-to-oil refineries, you upgrade the power plant’s output.

[truthguy]

McCain's idea of building 50 Nuclear Plants is not ambitious enough. I'd like to see 150 New Nuclear Power Plants. We need to stop using Natural Gas to generate electricity. We need to phase out coal as well.
We should use GTL (Gas to Liquid) and CTL (coal to liquid) for our transportation fuels. We can now do this with the price of oil at $130/Barrel.
Let's get moving.

[chessplayer]

Never gonna happen. Environmentalists can tie up any plans for nuke plans in the courts for decades.

[SamAdams76]

Well the list is not surprising when you consider the fact that most of the countries using more energy (per capita) than us have extremely cold climates and are probably still heating their homes even now in July (Oslo, Norway is 44 degrees right now). The other countries live in deserts where they probably have their air conditioning on ten months a year.

[Lazarus Starr]

They need to quit “discussing” it and just sign the executive order to build them. That way our energy prices go down and the sheeple can go back to watching CSI.

[neutronsgalore]

“I’d like to see 150 New Nuclear Power Plants.”

With at least 4 reactors in each power plant. And a coal-to-oil refinery across the street from each one.

[truthguy]

Now your talking!

[WHBates]

Of course that is something that the Democrats will not do. But on the other side of it, our system requires these plant the be financed (largely) by private companies and the Utilities must manage risk. The PBR design is commercially unproven and that is a problem. The only Gas cooled reactor in the US (Fort St Vrain) was a commercial disaster. We currently has 3 designs that are or are in the late stages of the approval process and it will be a victory to get them rolling (God willing that will happen in the next 3 years) thanks in large part to the Bush administration and the previous Republican congress.