Nuclear Power Key To Containing Energy Costs

Courant ^ | July 29, 2008 | Mark J. Perry

[Clairity]

If ever there was a question about the need for nuclear power, it has certainly been dispelled now with the rising cost of fossil fuels.

The high price of oil, natural gas and coal should be a wake-up call to all regions of the country that the era of boundless use of cheap fossil fuels is over - and that nuclear power will need to play a larger role in supplying electricity to homes, business and industry.

The economic problems with natural gas buttress the case for switching to nuclear energy for electricity production. Seventeen companies are preparing license applications to build and operate 31 new reactors. John McCain wants 45 new reactors by 2030, followed by another wave of plants.

This support for nuclear energy is a hopeful sign, because the problems it has encountered have never been technological; they have been primarily political and institutional.

The United States pioneered the development of nuclear energy, and had the first major nuclear program. Most other leading industrial countries have continued developing their nuclear programs since the last nuclear plant order in the United States - primarily using U.S. technology.

Today we have the means - and more important, an urgent need - to bring that technology back home.

[Clairity]

Another article:

Howard Shaffer: For cheaper, more reliable energy, go nuclear

"... the Northeast needs to get serious about expanding the use of nuclear power, which supplies clean, carbon-free energy at less than a third the cost of natural gas -- 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for nuclear power last year, compared to 6.8 cents per kwh for natural gas.

Nuclear plants, solar plants and wind turbines all cost a lot of money up front, but that is not the right measure. All costs need to be averaged over the life of the plant. Utilities are projecting $5 billion to $7 billion for each new nuclear plant, but they produce oodles of power 24/7. Their lower average cost over a reactor's lifetime of 40 years or more gives them a considerable economic advantage over natural gas and coal. "

[SpaceBar]

The United States has extensive reserves of domestic uranium, easily mined using in-situ leaching technology that is efficient, safe, and environmentally sound.

[Racer1]

The problem I have with nuclear power is that none of the companies that own them want to really deal with the waste, meaning reprocessing, and the site cleanup at the end of a nuclear plant’s life.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

45 new nuclear plants is a start, maybe a good pilot program. 900 is a solution. With that we could convert virtually all of our base load power to nuclear and hydro with fossil fuel plants for peak load and backup.

To power an industrial civilization you need electrical power that is economical and reliable. The problem with “renewable” energy is that the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always shine and there is no storage on the grid. In fact, I have a feeling that if we added 100,000,000 plug in hybrids, from smart cars to 18 wheelers, we would probably break the grid.

Efficiency and cleanliness are good things but at the end of the day when I flip the light switch in the bathroom the light had better come on. Otherwise I get yelled at.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

I agree, we should step up to reprocessing. At about one cubic yard of waste per year per plant it hasn’t been a critical issue up to now.

Site cleanup is a problem throughout industry and will always be so. And there are more hazardous and difficult to handle things out there than old nuclear plants.

The bottom line is, the current fossil fuel based power generation system spews tons of toxic gases and particulate waste, including radium, thorium and uranium, into the atmosphere every day and not many people are boycotting their local power company in protest.

[kellynla]

BTTT

[barkeep]

Happens I was a concrete worker on the last commercial nuke plant in America, Shearon Harris in NC. Sadly, over 30 years ago.

Don’t blame the companies for the waste/reprocessing problem, that was one of Jimmah Carter’s gifts to us. As part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we banned reprocessing spent fuel rods. There was some vague idea it would prevent new members of the nuclear weapons club. That worked out well, didn’t it?

The whole Yucca mountain model is stupidity squared. If spent fuel is “hot” enough to be dangerous, it is by definition a richer source of new fuel than any natural ore. My God, even the French are brighter than this.

[edzo4]

just let the US Navy run the reactors, The Navy has run more nuclear reactors than other countries

also, the US Air Force is the largest air force in the world, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy

[thackney]

none of the companies that own them want to really deal with the waste, meaning reprocessing

Not their choice. Jimmy Carter made reprocessing of spent fuel illegal.

[jwparkerjr]

re: there are more hazardous and difficult to handle things out there than old nuclear plants

You mean like Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs!

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Nothing like a little mercury to make a land fill complete. Another good example of the lib’s total disregard for the law of unintended consequences.

:o[

[Wonder Warthog]

"The problem I have with nuclear power is that none of the companies that own them want to really deal with the waste, meaning reprocessing, and the site cleanup at the end of a nuclear plant’s life."

"Dealing with waste" has been co-opted by the federal government, and is no longer the responsibility of the companies. Site cleanup at the end of a nuclear plant's life remains company responsibility, and has already been done for several reactors in the US.

"Solving the radwaste problem..." has already been done several different ways. The real problem is that the eco-nutcases and their Democrat enablers will not ALLOW the solutions to be implemented.

[jwparkerjr]

re: Nothing like a little mercury to make a land fill complete

I’m not worried about Mercury all that much. It’s a small planet and it’s very far away. I’m much more concerned about people sneaking across our border from the south.

</sarcasm>

[6ppc]

John McCain wants 45 new reactors by 2030

We need them by 2015.

[mrmargaritaville]

Actually the first commercial nuke plant was\is the
Shippingport plant (down the ohio river from Pittsburgh) built in ‘57.

[thackney]

Was.

It was shut down in 1982 and completely decommissioned by 1987.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/superla.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/doe_shippingport_01.htm

[Sig Sauer P220]

Happens I was a concrete worker on the last commercial nuke plant in America, Shearon Harris in NC. Sadly, over 30 years ago.

Wolf Creek in Kansas, was completed in the late 80's. I used to work for the company.

http://www.kansastravel.org/wolfcreek.htm

[barkeep]

It would be close. I relied on an article I tripped over recently. Harris went online 1987, I was working there ‘80 and ‘81.

[sefarkas]

Last American reactor to go into commercial operation was Watts Bar #1 in 1996.