This article is BS. This German chancellor is scrapping plans to get rid of nuclear power, because the big money interests prefer to use nuclear power, and they have a strangle hold over the hierarchy of the CDU/CSU gang, who are now in a unity government with the "Social Democrats," whose current boss is Gerhard Shroeder, and a complete closet case Christian Democrat and booty kisser for W and betrayer of all Social Democrats should stand for anywhere. He is almost as much in favor privatization as Merkel and her CDU/CSU gang.

Fortunately, a rebellion is brewing among Social Democrats against Shroeder and others who have betrayed their party and the working people. The main good thing about Shroeder and his kind among the Social Democrats is that even they don't want any part of nuclear power.

Billy, thanks for that info. I finally get it. Nuclear power is perfectly safe and we will only have to store the deadly nuclear waste for a thousand years.

Dang, I was mis-informed! Well shut my mouth and those of all the real experts who have been concerned. You have made my day Bill, thanks again.

Gotta leave now and go feed the bird, see we have one out there today. Funny, last year we had hundreds of them. We used to spend a lot of money buying bird seed, now we have a lot more $ for gas, things usually work out for the best, just tell it to the lord, pray__ and it will all be Okay. That's what Bush does too, and he's a lot smarter than me.

Evelyn,

In the current fleet of nuclear reactors plutonium is both created and burned. Unfortunately, in a water cooled reactor it is created faster than it is burned. As a result, used reactor fuel from our current reactors has an inventory of plutonium.

Most of the plutonium we have in inventory was purpose made for nuclear weaponry in special reactors, such as at Hanford. This weapons grade plutonium is 93% pure plutonium-239 or higher.

The plutonium in used commercial power fuel, referred to as reactor grade plutonium, has about 25% or higher of plutonium-240. Plutonium-240 will really mess up a plutonium based nuclear weapon.

In a water cooled reactor, such as we have in the US, plutonium-240 cannot be made to fission. In a water cooled reactor only those isotopes with odd numbers will fission (primarily uranium-233, uranium-235, plutonium-239 and plutonium-241).

In a fast reactor (which doesn't have water or graphite to slow down the neutrons-hence fast) plutonium-240 can be made to fission. Incidently, so can uranium-238. Fast reactors are more expensive than water cooled reactors to build and operate. The United States does not have any fast reactors in operation at this time. Russia, France and Japan do.

The commercial reactors in this country are basically derivative from the reactor used in the Nautilus, the first navy reactor. It was water cooled and thus so are our power reactors. Water cooled reactors are a very mature and safe technology.

I agree, TMI-2 was a very scary accident. No one got hurt and no one was exposed to radiation beyond legal limits. The reactor vessel was not breached in the accident. If the vessel were breached more radioactive material would have been released. At least the clean up would have taken longer and been more expensive. I believe doomsday may be a bit of an overstatement.

The government has proposed a series of test reactors (referred to as "Generation-IV"). The goal would be to replace the current reactor fleet at their end of life with more efficient reactors. As of now, 2 of the reactors proposed for Generation-IV are fast reactors and one of them is kinda fast (half fast?) and could burn plutonium. We will have to see if the government will actually pony up the money to build them.

Burn plutonium? Billy, if we can get rid of plutonium by burning it, why in hell are we spending billions of dollars storing it. Why not burn all of the thousands of tons of it now? It is my understanding that plutonium is indestructable.

And personally I really don't care if wind/solar are not yet competitive, nuclear power is just to dangerous, it is not IF a nuclear accident will someday occur and steralize a huge area of land and kill millions, the question is__ WHEN?__We were just pure ass lucky with the accident at Three Mile Island, even our president showed up in person when that accident occurred. It was more than serious and very vey close to doomsday for the East Coast of the United States. Will something like that happen again? The answer is yes,___ just give it time.

Paul,

Yes, Evelyn is correct. I work in the nuclear industry and it does provide me a paycheck (oh, that it would be larger!)

My conviction that nuclear power should be pursued vigorously is a very considered judgement and I believe independent of my employment. My employment and training has provided me, however, with an in depth understanding of the issues and comparative costs both financial and environmental.

The manufacture and use of nuclear weaponry and/or DU munitions are completely separate subjects and are irrelevant to the merits and demerits of nuclear power for electricity production.

On the question of renewables providing more energy, certainly if your reference is for all energy production (which would include items such as wood for heating and dung for cooking) it seems reasonable that renewables would outstrip nuclear.

Although the US is pretty well tapped out, hydroelectric is continuing to expand. The Three Gorges dam in China when complete will generate the equivalent of about 22 nuclear plants at one gigawatt each. Of course the lake behind it is displacing over a million people.

If Chris's projection of future costs for PV occur, it would be nice for photovoltaics to be economically competitive. The predicatable power cycle from PV does coincide pretty well with peak daily demand. The need for energy storage and it's additional cost would not become an issue until PV generating capacity approached more than 20% of total grid capacity. Solar power has an advantage over wind in being more predictable for the grid manager and would not introduce instabilities.

Compared to current technology fossil fuel plants, the front end capital costs of a nuclear plant are higher. The costs for a carbon sequestering fossil plant are not yet fully known but I suspect that, at least for coal, a fully CO2 sequestering plant will be more expensive than a nuclear plant of matching capacity.

Compared to fossil fuel plants, the ongoing operating costs of a nuclear plant are much lower. Nuclear fuel costs are much lower than the lowest of the fossil fuels, coal. The ongoing costs do include security, used fuel disposal (a fee is collected by the US government for every kilowatt-hour generated to cover disposal costs), and decommisioning and removal of the plant at end of life.

In the US where hydroelectric is pretty well maxed out and the best geothermal sites have already been exploited, renewables cannot currently compete with nuclear for base load power generation.

The wind industry is growing rapidly in the US but government production credits have seriously distorted the market. (Yes, I am aware that similar credits will be available to the first couple of new nuclear plants.) Were it not for the production credits, wind would not be competative.

On your question on mining: Yes in the early days of the uranium mining industry during and after WW2 the safety hazards were seriously underestimated. Particularly with underground mining, Radon exposure was not understood. Lung cancer, particularly for smoking miners, was prevalent.

Much has been made of the longevity of radiation from the used fuel. It is true that, if you are limited to water cooled reactors, the radiation of the used fuel is very long lasting. On a long term basis, an investment needs to be made in fast reactors (i.e. no water). With fast reactors the long lived transuranic elements (such as neptunium and plutonium) can be burned. If you can eliminate the transuranic elements, the length of time that the fission fragments must be safeguarded is dramatically reduced. (We would still need Yucca mountain or a similar repository for 500 to 1000 years.)

Germany should have voted for the Left party, and the country wouldn't be in this damn mess. The "Social Democrats" have become the "party on the right" under Gerhard Shroeder. He is another damn Tony Blair. The Social Democrats need to get rid of him and fast.

I'm glad to see the discussion here focusing on comparative costs, risks and benefits. In a rational society, that's where the decision will ultimately be made. (Whether we have a rational society is a different question.)

But regarding the costs/benefits question, Chris should have included security costs in the mix. Nuclear energy producers cannot pay their insurance costs and still be competitive: governments have to provide the insurance (and, presumably, much of the anti-terrorist security measures as well.)

Also, the DoE says that the next generation of PV (or the generation following that) will produce electricity at about$1/watt; that a solar collecter will have a payback period of one year and produce 29 more years of "free" energy.

Finally, as of 1993 economist John Blackburn claimed that air conditioning and dehumidification systems (which did not involve storage)existed that were already competitive.
Blackburn's book is "Solar Florida:toward a sustainable future."

With all the penchant for keeping and expanding the use of nuclear power generating facilities around the globe I sure am glad I carry a nukalert on my keychain. See www.nukalert.com

Nuclear power generation is playing with fire, folks, and sooner or later we will get burned...and it will be very ugly.

Billy_y4, if as Evelyn says you are part of the nuclear community, I can understand you have a conflict of interest between personal finances and the rational opposition to nuclear power. You seem informed to a certain extent, and I respect that, unless your financial bias affects your common sense.

Are you aware that two years ago renewables passed the output of all the world's nuclear power plants, and that is with only one percent of the funding directed at nuclear? Imagine if we spent equal funding for awhile on renewables where we would be.

Rapid advances will now be made for solar since there is a new process for extruding photovoltaics.

Nuclear power is hyped as the least costly, but that is a lie because it doesn't take into account construction costs OR the 'opportunity costs' of diverting funding from renewables. That's like saying my new $150,000 Rolls gets X miles per gallon, so it's very cheap, but when the cost of the vehicle is figured in over the life of the vehicle another story emerges, doesn't it.

As far as nuclear plants being on-line all the time that isn't quite the truth either. A report I read recently surprised even me with the number of plants (in the US) that were shut down for safety violations, some for as long as two years even. Do you know of any windmill, solar device, or geothermal system that would take that long for repairs?

Another factor to consider is the ten years it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running. With aggressive funding how many windmills & such could be constructed in that same amount of time?

A prime consideration is the fact that, just like oil has a peak, the materials necessary to power a nuclear power plant are also in finite supply. In other words nuclear fuel will also eventually run out. Has the wind ever stopped blowing, the sun ceased to shine permanently, waves quit rolling in, or geothermals cooled off completely? To counter the effects of recognized climate change we need green solutions tending toward indefinite rather than just temporary bandaids.

In a related vein, are you aware of the deleterious effects miners of uranium have experienced?

Just tonight I read an article stating the nuclear facilities in this country are not impervious to terrorist attack. With being in favor of proliferating nuclear power are you ready to accept the responsibility on your conscience of the death & disease to perhaps millions in the event of accident or terrorist attack? We are already seeing the effects of a low level radiation source as found in DU (depleted uranium) on our soldiers returning home from Iraq & Afghanistan, as well as residents of those countries.

If we don't open Pandora's box we won't have to worry about the effect of what's inside, right? For one I am in favor of freezing construction of any nuclear power plants, re-directing funding to a massive push toward 'green' renewables (which doesn't include growing/trading food output for fuel), to make the public aware conservation of resources is a necessity rather than luxury re-institute odd/even gas days, and eventually eliminating the dangerous potential of nuclear power plants by phasing them out altogether.

Wind, tide and geo-thermal are great, wind is especially cheap to install right now, but all of those are very limited resources compared to solar. There is a map which shows how much of the earth needs to be covered with solar panels to generate all of our energy needs (but multiply that by 20 to bring the third world up to first world usage). The dots were drawn assuming 8% efficient panels, current panels are 20% efficient. http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

You have your ducks lined up Chris. That's good because Billy__y4 works for or with nuclear power people. See his blogs on other sites. I think he is a nice person, but fully dedicated to his belief in nuclear energy.

The sun doesn't shine 24-7 but in some places of the world the wind blows almost 24-7 and the tides are constant as is geo-thermal. Imagine the jobs, if we began a full scale effort to build clean energy plants in the US. Imagine the fight to do so with the oil and mining industries.

Nuclear power is only able to survive here, because of government support and funding. Billy is absolutely correct on his statements about burning coal. It is the worst as far as polluting the atmosphere with smoke and causing the green house effet on the planet. Nuclear power is the worst for polluting the atmosphere with poison. I appreciate your comments Chris.___ Spread the word whenever you can.

Let's see, $2 Billion without counting the fuel? And not counting storing the waste for a million years? Photovoltaics have come down from $30/watt 30 years ago to $3/watt and are expected to be 40% lower in three years, and another 60% below that, about $0.80/watt once large scale use begins. And by large scale use I mean more than 10% of electrical generation. Yes the sun only shines during the day, which is when peak loads occur, but for night what is used is pumped hydro storage, which is 78% efficient. While nuclear plants are also shut down occasionally for maintenance solar power shuts down once a day every day, so a 1,200 Megawatt peak solar plant produces on average 19% times that on an annual basis. Still the total available even in a cloudy country like Germany is many, many times total energy needs, not just electrical, but including all uses.

Storing it as hydrogen is a total waste of money, other than for unusual applications such as the space shuttle. Batteries are about 95% efficient, hydrogen maybe 30%.

By the way, as an example of large scale use of solar power, covering the sahara desert with photovoltaics would generate about 54 times the worlds total use of energy (of all types), and since they are made from sand, well does the Sahara have any sand? With that kind of energy to waste we may find hydrogen storage used, but for domestic use and in automobiles, transmission lines and batteries are far more practical.

It is truly illogical that Ms. Merkel or any other Government leader entertains the idea that nuclear energy can be the answer to global warming. Does she not realize that a new reactor would need to be licensed and running every 4 months between now and half way through the century. This is not going to happen. Our "need" ( created by the energy companies) for the electricity must decrease. We must use less, drive less, develop efficiency measures, act to create a sane future not one based on the illusion that the atom will be our saviour...
In case you missed it, I found this article useful,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
also available here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070607L.shtml

The fact that this was not made public is akin to the worldwide PR campaign that creates the illusion of nuclear as a response to global warming.

Nuclear is no safer today than it was in the days of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl- but today it represents a terrorist target.

Also see http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_60486.shtml

Chris, good blog.

There is a new solar tube which has been developed and is currently in the final stages of perfection; it will be avaiabe for sale early next year. It is far less expensive to manufacture than current solar panels and produces more electrical power per square inch than the large panels do and it uses far less energy to produce them.

In addition, the solar/wind towers being built in Australia and China, may be the best answer for almost all of the world's energy needs. Those can also be used to crack sea water to produce hydrogen fuel at a very low cost per gallon. One tower will produce enough electrical power for 10,000 homes.

Atomic power would be wonderful, if it wasn't for the deadly atomic waste___ which will eventually [and possibly be much sooner than most would like to believe], be the end of all life on our planet.

There is absolutely no way to "safely" store millions of tons of deadly nuclear waste "forever". From now to perpituity we must safely store it.___ Impossible.

Chris,

A current design nuclear power plant is maybe $2 billion for a 1.2 gigawatt plant. Estimates vary but this is typical.

1.2 gigawatts of PV (just the panels-not the controls or the mounting hardware) is $6 billion at retail. This would be the plant output on a sunny day at noon. If you would like to verify this, search on the internet for large solar panels and the prices will be pretty close to $5/watt.

A nuclear plant operates at full power approximately 90% of the time. A PV plant operates the equivalent of 25% of the time if located in the US desert southwest (about 6 hours a day on average).

Assuming you could get a 50% price break from retail on such a large order of PV panels, the PV plant will be approximately 5 times as expensive for a given amount of delivered electricity.

Chris,

What do we do to generate power at night, and when it is cloudy?

Now, I'm all for living frugally - I don't use air conditioning, but I do use fans on summer nights. Just the same, an electrical system relying on nearly no generation capacity at night or when large parts of the continent are cloudy would require draconian regulation of electricity usage - comparable to what Iraqis or Gazans are currently living with - and I just don't find that realistic.

Like I wrote, we can't put all the eggs in one basket.

We need to keep our eggs in many baskets, while pursuing renewables, we need to maintain or increase nuclear electricity generating capacity on the mid-term horizon.

There are a lot of things in the environment worse for you than than the radioactive materials produced by light-water reactors - including many far-less detectable chemicals in the environment, and the tip-over to a runaway greenhouse effect.

Photovoltaics has the capacity to produce in one year all the energy available forever from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear combined. It is solar power that is the only viable alternative today, not nuclear.

This is not a new story. Merkel has been very clear that her views include nuclear power since before the election. Only to form a majority government did she agree to retaining the nuclear phaseout.

The Social Democrats are closely tied to the coal mining union and industry. Coal and nuclear are head to head competitors for base load power generation. Maintaining the nuclear phaseout is a life and death issue for the coal industry in Germany.

Clearly the next election in Germany will be a very interesting one. Environmental issues are likely to be major themes of all parties.

Even though solar photovoltaics accounted for only 0.3% of electricity generation in Germany in 2006 it is increasing by over 50% per year, and at that rate by 2020 80% of demand could be provided by photovoltaics.

Photovoltaics have the potential to provide in one year more than all the energy available ever from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear combined. It is solar power that is the only viable alternative today, not nuclear.

Makes sense. The amount of energy required for our modern way of life is so enormous that even conservation, efficiency and renewables are insufficient. Nuclear is the only real alternative to fossil fuel. The challenge is to make it safe.

She's Germany's Maggie Thatcher and a fraud on climate change, as she only wants to use the market, which is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Forget about her BS.

Chris, did you see my blogs about the Power Towers? They use a wind/solar combo for generating electrical power. They work well day and night, but better during daylight.

One tower will supply the electrical needs for ten thousand homes. On a twenty square mile area, enough towers could supply the needs for ten million families and crack sea water to cheaply produce hydrogen fuel. We need all of the dfferent types and close down every nuker in the world and the coal fired ones also.

On another blog I mentioned a new type of solar tube which is better than the solar panels. I have to look up the websites for it.