Nuclear power's 'renaissance'?

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2006 | Joyce Howard Price

[T Ruth]

It's been 20 years since the deadly explosion and fire at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and with the passing of two decades comes a time of renewed interest in nuclear energy, given the high levels of safety and production at U.S. power plants and the advancement of technology.

Industry leaders are calling this the "renaissance of nuclear energy," . . .

. . . A partnership called UniStar Nuclear, . . . has told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) it expects to submit applications to build and operate reactors at both Calvert Cliffs and a site in upstate New York in 2008 and 2009.

* * *

Nuclear power plants were a pariah for many years after TMI 2 and Chernobyl, but now the mood is changing for these reasons: the overall performance and safety records of nuclear power plants; the fact that they are clean -- with no air-pollution emissions at all when they are operated correctly; plus the fact there are already designs on the books successfully being used for even safer reactors being built in Europe and Asia.

* * *

Nuclear power supporters include President Bush; his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Christie Whitman, former Environmental Protection Agency director and New Jersey governor; and Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development.

Mr. Kerekes of NEI agrees the future looks bright for nuclear power.

"We have 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States, which represent 2,500 combined reactor years. So we have compiled quite a lot of experience."

* * *

[mike70]

I worked on the data base used for wiring those plants in the late 70's

[mike70]

There are actually several rivers which could be used for that purpose in each of the states mentioned

[AmericaUnited]

In the U.S.A., deaths inside a nuclear reactor are slightly behind deaths in cars driven by Ted Kennedy

ROFLOL!

[Revel]

Idiots. I would rather live without power than to have one of these in my back yard.

[RCNOVA]

If one believes Gore and his followers (I don't) then the only real option is to build a lot of nuclear power plants. Ironically, it will be that crowd which resists it the most.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Put all nuclear plants in the deserts of Wy, Nv, NM, or MT, well away from cities."

Why bother?? The track record of even the old technology fission plants is superb, and the "fail-safe" designs on the drawing boards will be even better. Put'em underground right smack dab in the middle of urban areas, and use the waste heat to heat houses and for industry.

[Wonder Warthog]

"In the U.S.A., deaths inside a nuclear reactor are slightly behind deaths in cars driven by Ted Kennedy. TMI killed no one with the possible exeption of guys who lost their jobs in its wake."

Not "quite" true. As far as CIVILIAN nuclear power goes, you are correct, but there was ONE incident (a small Army experimental reactor back in the 1950's) that did result in at least one fatality. I don't recall all the details, but it seems to me that it was a sergeant and a couple of privates on an off shift, and they somehow screwed up moving a control rod into or out of the reactor. The reactor overpressured, blew the control rod out, and (I think) impaled one of them to the ceiling (he certainly died). The other two had high radiation exposure, and I don't recall whether they died or not.

I think the Army left the reactor business to the Navy after that.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Nucs have to be near a water source."

No, actually they don't. It's just a lot cheaper to build a once-through water heat exchanger than it is to build a closed-loop air heat exchanger.

[Westlander]

SL-1 ACCIDENT, 1961, IDAHO, USA

http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/RRaccidents.html

[Jotmo]

We now have nearly lossless superconductor cable that can transfer the electricity to whatever power grid needs it

We do? I'd like to see a source for that.

[Wonder Warthog]

"SL-1 ACCIDENT, 1961, IDAHO, USA"

Thanks. I came closer to being right than I thought I would, since I last read about this stuff more than thirty years ago.

[grundle]

Can you verify or debunk this? I'm pro-nuclear power, by the way.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

24 July 1964

Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>"The idea is great, but the siting is not good."

You must be talking about dam breaks, or the thousands dying from black lung disease.

Do you think people are falling over like flies from nuclear power generation in the U.S?

How many have there been? Let's see... (keep thinking)... (keep struggling)... Sorry, no deaths in U.S. due to nuclear power generation. Hopefully we can go to near 100 per cent non-mobile (car, truck, rail, plane) power generation from nuclear sources. It's cheaper and more environmentally benign. Even the tree huggers are coming around to this point.

[Tribune7]

bump. The silver lining to the global warming panic.

[Tarantulas]

Nucs have to be near a water source.

The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station where I work is 40 miles west of Phoenix with no lakes or rivers nearby (the Hassayampa River is within 5 miles, but it's dry). The cooling water for the plant comes from the 91st Avenue water treatment plant in Phoenix. It's piped about 35 miles to the plant, cleaned up, and supplied to the evaporative cooling towers. I think it's the only nuclear plant in the country that's not adjacent to a lake, a river, or the ocean.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sounds vaguely familiar. The guy poured a solution of a uranium compound from a flat tray into a round vessel. It was fine in the tray, but in the round vessel it achieved criticality. I don't think he died on the spot, but rather it was a horrible lingering death.

[grundle]

Thanks.

[D-fendr]

20% of U.S. energy use comes from nuclear plants today.

The amount of power output from nuclear has increased dramatically even though no new plants have been built.

[D-fendr]

Vermont, in 2005, generated the greatest percentage of its electricity from nuclear energy of any state: 72 percent. New Jersey and South Carolina generated more than half of their electricity from nuclear energy in 2005.

[backhoe]

I have covered, ( Or, as Seamole calls it...-backhoe's pseudoblog--...-more- ) pseudo-blogged, these issues for years-- we all need to get serious about our dependency on foreign sources of energy, and use our own resources.

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 & 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. Nor is there anything wrong with "alternative" energy sources- except they don't supply the vast ( not to mention readily-available ) amounts of power we need at a price competitive to more conventional sources.

Then again, there is this to ponder:
Energy From the Gulf Stream
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/mhoover.pdf

Tidal energy farm proposed for Vineyard Sound

We do need to get serious about this before we get strangled by a bunch of petty thieves and dictators who don't like us much.

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 derisive... so, who's laughing now?

Vest-Pocket Summary:

1- drill for gas & 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