EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nuclear Power’s Megafraud
Energy independence is the new creationism; nuclear power its deity. As the head glow for nuclear's new dawn, you can't do better than Aris Candris. He's president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric, the company aiming to build 14 of 25 new nuclear reactors planned in the United States. Candris also sums up everything that's wrong with the nuclear power industry's orchestrated revival-the deceptions, the manipulated numbers, the false promises and the sheer swindle of taxpayer dollars for a technology with a lethal past and an unproven future. Candris' Nov. 9 tribute to nuclear in The Wall Street Journal tells the tall tale.
Candris claims that, because electricity demand will grow 21 percent by 2030 from current levels, and "renewable energy sources produce only a small percentage" of total electricity output, it's "doubtful that they can be scaled up to a degree that would make a significant impact on rising electricity demand over the short or intermediate term." Actually, that's more true of nuclear, far less so of renewable. Not a single nuclear power plant has been approved and built in the United States since the 1970s. The newest one, Watts Bar in Tennessee, began construction in 1973 and went online in 1996 -- a 23-year span that multiplied its initial costs, to $7 billion. Candris gives the impression that a slew of plants are about to be built. Not so. A slew of plants applied for licenses, but only because the federal government is offering up to $1 billion in tax credits per new nuclear plant (once electricity production begins), as long as the application was in by the end of 2008.
"We expect the first of these new plants to come online about 2016," Candris writes of Westinghouse's planned construction, which includes reactors for Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point plant south of Miami. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission three weeks ago declared Westinghouse's designs flawed and possibly in need of redesign. Westinghouse's Web site still claims its reactors will churn by 2016. Look for pigs flying around Turkey Point, too, because Westinghouse's claims are identical to those of Areva, a French company building what was supposed to be a next-generation nuclear plant in Finland-quick, safe, cheap. The plant, Europe's first in 30 years, was supposed to open last summer. Finns will be lucky if it's open by 2012. It was to cost $3.5 billion. The cost is now creeping close to $7 billion and counting.
Candris presumes that growing electricity demand is "too great to satisfy with energy efficiency and conservation alone." And he points to France, which produces 80 percent of its electricity through nuclear energy, as the model of "the world's most nuclear-dependent and energy-independent country." But French electricity consumption is 7,200 kilowatts per person per year, 44 percent less than the American consumption of 12,900 kilowatts per person. France is a model-of conservation. (Candris is wrong about France's independence: it imports all of its oil and natural gas.)
In the United States between 1995 and 2008, electricity consumption increased by 22 percent, more than the projected increase over the next 21 years. The country coped without gobs of nuclear power-and can cope again as renewables like wind and solar increase their share of electricity generation, from 5 percent today (compared with nuclear's 20 percent) faster and safer. Imagine if renewables had the kind of obscene tax subsidies the nuclear industry is receiving.
Candris' final fallacy: Renewables are "comparatively more expensive energy sources." In fact, nuclear energy is more expensive than solar or wind energy. Take Florida Power & Light's plan to build two new nuclear reactors sometime over the next 12 years (it's not clear when, though the company is already socking it to customers by making them pay for construction today. No other state but Georgia allows that con). The projected cost of the two reactors is $18 billion. It'll certainly go up well beyond that by the time they're done, but go with the $18 billion figure. The two reactors will produce 2,234 megawatts of electricity. That comes out to $8 million per megawatt at the opening bell. FPL just started operating a 25-megawatt solar-power plant in DeSoto County. Cost: $152 million, or $6 million per megawatt -- $2 million cheaper than the projected cost of the nuclear reactors. With wind, it's even cheaper. A Chinese-American consortium on Oct. 29 announced plans for a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas. Cost: $1.5 billion, or $2.5 million per megawatt. Cheap nuclear power? Demonstrably not.
Keep in mind that wind and solar farms require zero raw materials to operate, and minimal security. Terrorists aren't about to crash planes into wind turbines or solar panels. Operating a nuclear plant is said to be cheaper than operating gas- or coal-fired plants-but not when security, liability and potential catastrophes are figured into the equation. And for all the safety advances of the past 30 years, the current fleet of about 100 reactors has a projected Chernobyl- or Three Mile Island-like severe accident rate of one every 100 years. Would you like to live near those odds?
The nuclear power industry can't even persuade its own investors to bet on it, so it's going after tax dollars and captive customers to pay for its dreamed-up expansion. Simple solution: If nuclear power can make it on its own, fine. But it's far too dangerous, too uncertain, too costly and too tempting to terrorists to be subsidized by taxpayers and unwilling customers. So far, the nuclear power industry is betting equally and exclusively on public dollars and gullibility. Don't let it get away with it.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
51 Comments so far
Show AllRemember "too cheap to meter"?!
-30-
Oddly, the author missed two huge cost issues of these plants. 1. What to do with the highly radioactive waste they will produce since we still have no Nat'l or Int'l safe storage facilities. and 2. Who pays the enormous costs associated with de-commissioning these monsters once their usable lifespan ends? Nuclear looks clean because it produces no Hydrocarbon waste but it does produce awful amounts of truly scary waste and the plants themselves then need to be entombed when their finished producing electricity and nobody knows what that will cost? My guess is many of the Corps. that build and operate these beasts will take all the profits up front and then go belly up @ the end handing the waste problem and the decommisoning problem to the rest of us to deal with. We shouldn't listen to the lying siren song of the people at Westinghouse that this source of energy is sane and reasonable, its neither as experience has proven.
Nuclear DOES produce greenhouse gas (carbon-based).
The high quality, shallow uranium that we have been mining for years takes lots of fossil fuel to mine, transport and process. In the furture we will need to dig deeper for lower grade uranium that requires more fossil fuel to process.
No energy source will have a zero carbon impact.
You could argue that the manufacture and transport of wind turbines and solar panels emit some CO-2 also.
Still, nuclear energy has a vastly reduced carbon footprint.
To produce 1 GW electricity for a year =
more than 2 million tons of coal
200 tons of natural uranium or 20 tons of enriched uranium.
Which do you think would take more energy to transport?
Slots nicely with the utter fraud of the entire DEM miserepublican regime in US!
Yeah Olemanriver and I am still waiting for my flying car.
The main obstacle to dramatic expansion of nuclear power in US
has been political and not technical.I find it silly how anti-nuclear
people regularly use their opposition to nuclear energy as an argument
against nuclear energy. Opinions change, although sometimes slowly,
when the reality sinks in. Those who have best understanding of radiation safety as well as energy production are far more likely to be pro-nuclear than those without the relevant education.
The price comparisons in this column were also comical. I will not bother to go into detailed figures, but both solar and (especially) wind are erratic sources of energy and deliver power between zero and their maximum power. Wind turbines typically deliver less than 25% of their peak power and this production is not matched to the electricity demand. Therefore, with those one needs investments in fossil fuel based powerplants which produce the power when it is not windy (or sunny). Nuclear plants are on almost 100% of the time and their dependence on fossil fuel powerplants is negligible.
Comparing the cost installation cost of erratic energy sources with reliable ones is just stupid unless you add in those expenses that are required to make energy sources comparable. (1 dollar of rotten apples costs as much as 1 dollar of good ones, but for the consumer their value is not the same.) Also, wind turbines are scattered and require greater spending in power transmission.
Finally, the life-time of a nuclear power plant is around 60 years. Lifetime of a wind turbine is around 20 years. During the lifetime of the nuclear power plant you have to construct those wind turbines 3 times and even then you only get that 25% of the energy...unless you choose to build so many wind turbines that you get four times the power of the nuclear power plant.So even based on the columnists own figures, nuclear is cheaper by far.
"I find it silly how anti-nuclear people regularly use their opposition to nuclear energy as an argument against nuclear energy."
What are we supposed to use, statistics on rubber duckies?
This highly flawed article is more evidence that the debate about nuclear energy has shifted from 'bad for the environment' to 'too expensive.'
Nuclear power is expensive. Coal is cheap.
But how much does a ruined planet cost?
What is the price tag of climate change?
The most ridiculous point the author makes is that we have coped with increasing demand for electricity without nuclear power. He must mean that a drastic increase in burning fossil fuels like filthy coal is "coping." But hey, it's cheap.
The environmental complaints against nuclear energy have evaporated since nuclear energy is ecologically far superior to burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power does not emit CO-2.
It also does not foul the air with sulfur and nitrous oxides.
The waste created is a problem, but buried radioactive waste is nothing compared with the consequences of burning coal.
>>The waste created is a problem, but buried radioactive waste is nothing compared with the consequences of burning coal.
I would suggest that the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq would much prefer the US Burn coal then drop their Nuclear waste all over THEIR countries.
Nuclear power is a bad choice. Claiming it cleaner then burning hydrocarbons is like comparing death by hanging to death by electrocution.
Both kill.
People who promote nuclear energy never address the huge negative impacts.
They talk as if the uranium just magically appears and disappears.
They isidiously downplay the hundreds of thousands of years of horrendous deforming toxicity and huge expenses involved.
Simultaneously, they dismiss the idea of making already existing safer alternatives more accessible.
In essence, they want simple answers wherein they don't have to change their way of life.
Behaving in a responsible and respectful way toward the planet would mean that they would have a lower impact and, apparently, THAT is not tolerable.
I am pro nuclear energy because it will not destroy the planet.
Fossil fuels will destroy the planet.
Why worry about the long half life of radioactive material when the planet won't last 30 years if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
Most radiation exposure is from natural sources. These include: radioactivity in rocks and soil of the earth's crust; radon, a radioactive gas from the earth and present in the air; and cosmic radiation. About one quarter of natural radiation comes from the human body itself. The human environment has always been radioactive and accounts for up to 85% of the annual human radiation dose.
Worrying about radioactive waste buried in the ground while the planet burns up makes no sense at all.
Wind and solar are far superior to nuclear energy.
We should shut down fossil fuel plants entirely and use nuclear to fill in gaps left by wind and solar--or there is no hope for the planet.
Typical Algore talk. You and I argued about the environmental issues. I can now see why you still think Algore is pro "environment". YUCK !
Yes. Al Gore--the environmental villain who wrote that book about why we should get rid of the automobile, and who made that movie about the dangers of fossil fuels.
The guy who is respected around the world for his devotion and knowledge re: climate change.
Al Gore is our biggest problem.
You just keep on bashing him. Good plan.
He is the problem.
Algore is busy supporting "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" even as we speak. He did nothing to reduce fuel consumption let alone get rid of the auto even while in office. If you think nuclear energy is the solution, you need to go back and study nuclear energy and stop parroting Big Nuclear talk.
The following is an excerpt from a Newsweek interview with Al Gore:
__________________________________________
"Newsweek has a new interview with Nobel Prize winning Former Vice President Al Gore, and they cover some interesting ground, including the auto industry bailout, climate change reactions around the world and the myth (it doesn't exist!) of clean coal.
As far as the car makers go, Al puts the blame squarely on the lame, outdated and lazy leaders who resisted new technology for so long.
It was so frustrating to be reminded that the government invested a billion dollars in the Big Three during the 90s to develop high-efficiency vehicles. If the car makers had built on that momentum we'd have lots of choices now, but as soon as the Bush cabal took office in 2000 they dropped the ball. Toyota got a huge jump start and today the auto industry is looking for a hand out.
So what now? Al says full speed ahead to plug in hybrid electric vehicles. No screwing around this time, and no getting complacent when oil prices go down.
In the interview, Al talked about taxing gas and carbon, but avoiding adding to the burden on the poor and middle class tax payer, as well as the concept of "tax what we burn, not what we earn." That would certainly get people to start paying attention to their energy consumption!
Regarding climate change around the globe, Al says (again) that as soon as the U.S. takes some real steps to fight climate change, the rest of the world will follow. China and India always use our lack of response as an excuse for inactivity. That's an easy one to fix.
My favorite part of the interview was when Al called shenanigans on "clean coal" aka the unicorn of alternative energy. The technology doesn't exist! We keep building coal burning plants and promising to retrofit them "someday" when the science catches up with our intentions.
____________________________________________
But you are right about one thing==Al Gore didn't manage to get rid of the automobile.
Even though he had a full 8 years as VP. Shame, shame.
I mean how hard can it be??
In summary, Gore chose to side with the corporate powers over the environment. Anybody can sizzle up interviews on climate change but when elected, who will actually fight to solve it? I don't see Gore's actions when he had the power to make the difference. On the other hand, the Nader raiders fought the corporate interests even though he never held an elected office.
The article isn't about fossil fuels vs. nuclear. It's about renewables vs. nuclear. You should read it again.
Bingo.
A crucial point in almost all nuclear apologia is the pretence that we have to choose between nuclear and coal.
It's nice to see Tristram's piece debunking that here at CD.
Actually, solar and wind electricity are far cheaper for small landowners to implement than either coal or nuclear energy. Small landowners can do this right now and profit despite the reluctance of government to subsidize their efforts on anything like the level that it has subsidized and still does subsidize massive nuclear efforts.
And one has the comfort of knowing one is not supporting the ghouls who provide the ongoing basis for nuclear arms, DU, and a lot of related mayhem. What could be more practical?
Why worry about the long half life of radioactive material when the planet won't last 30 years if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
Where's the science on that one? I haven't seen that 30 year figure anywhere else.
And regarding Al Gore, he wrote a book and made a movie, but what legislation did he steer to enactment while Senator? What did he do for the environment while VP for 8 years.
Al Gore's timidity and lack of faith in the people brought us W in 2000. He sent Jesse Jackson home in Nov 2000 during the post-election battle and told the unions not to send there people to FL. The result was the Brooks Brothers Riot, engineered by Tom Delay, that bullied Dade County into stopping the vote count. This was the turning point in the process that allowed Bush to steal the election.
If Al had had more faith in the people, Tom Delay's fat yuppies would have been sent home packing by the unions and the Jackson crowd. But a good southern gentleman like Gore was not going to rouse the rabble, after all.
And you want us to trust this blowhard?
No one knows how the ability of the planet to support life will play out as it warms up.
30 years is just my guess for when the ocean's function as a great carbon sink will falter and stored methane will be released as the permafrost melts even further, etc. etc. and we are no longer able to grow crops at anything like the current rate.
As for Al Gore--maybe he could have and should have done more to contest the election results but it was a long shot with the Supreme Court ruling and the very Inconvenient Governor of Florida. That does not equal villain in my book.
Also, VP doesn't have much authority. Clinton gets the blame for the Clinton years just as Obama, not Biden, gets the blame for continuing the wars and countless other failures.
Gore worked hard on the Kyoto Protocol.
It didn't make any sense to pass a global accord on climate change without including China and other "developing nations."
He is not perfect, but when he was Senator and even VP, nobody cared a whit about global warming. He was widely reviled and mocked for suggesting that we should get rid of the internal combustion engine. Ultimately, I think he is far more pragmatic than say Nader, realizing that you have to make a lot of compromises if you want to have any power.
It took Gore to get people's notice about the peril of climate change. As President, he would have I believe done a lot of persuading educating and motivating from the bully pulpit and then we would have seen some changes.
You summarize Gore's betrayal of his supporters: "As for Al Gore--maybe he could have and should have done more to contest the election results"
This is deception through moderate sounding understatement. Did you ever work for the MSM?
Gore's elitism undermined his post-election effort. He proved himself far more dedicated to the social order than to the American people. That elitism continues to mar his environmentalism.
As for Nader lacking pragmatism, his record of populist accomplishments far exceeds anything Gore has done for the people.
Finally about Gore you say: As President, he would have I believe done a lot of persuading educating and motivating from the bully pulpit and then we would have seen some changes.
Maybe, too bad he was too elitist and lame to lead a real populist fight for the Presidency.
One of the most glaring failures of Presidents is that they have an enormous audience whenever they want it,
but they never use it for educating the public. It is always for rhetoric and worse.
The dangers of climate change could be explained to the public in about 5 minutes.
They have been explained away by a massive media campaign from industry.
Gore is stiff and intellectual. People preferred the lazy logic of Bush, who never implied sacrifice, never appeared elite mainly because of his simple mind and had an understanding of science that fit well with the public's own.
I guess you think Nader is warm and fuzzy.
I don't. I think his way of putting himself into the ring every election without bothering to run a real campaign is deceptive and destructive.
As for my deception through moderate sounding understatement...
I find it very strange how Gore is vilified for this or that minor flaw.
Nader has never held office, so we can't really hold any voting records up to the light.
It is very easy to take a position or write altruistic letters that champion every single progressive cause when you aren't in office.
But Gore does not take his place behind Bush and Cheney as an evil destructive force.
Do I have to explain this?
Nader's saying it (by equating Gore with Bush) doesn't make it so.
The Supreme Court ruled against him.
Jeb Bush was in charge in Florida.
You may not like how this was handled, but I don't think anything he attempted was going to change the election outcome.
What is very very strange, is that Gore's flaws are magnified to a crazy degree and he is held to impossible standards.
It is fair to say he could have done more, but for whom does that not apply?
Nader could have done some things differently too.
Gore doesn't belong on any short list of evil people.
Even though Nader never held office, he was able to get a strong set of followers to fight the corporate interests back when the electorate was not as corn-fed. As dreamjoehill pointed out, what did Gore actually do to save the environment other than give empty fluff and puff speeches? Oh, and Gore won the popular vote but refused to strike back in 2004. I wished I could be like you and support Gore just like that but when I closely examined Gore's actions and stacked them all up, Gore wasn't what he claimed to be on the environment when push came to shove on legislation. Nader never held office but fought like a braveheart without compromising while Gore held public office for plenty of years but conceded to the corporate polluters when push came to shove.
What about the nuclear waste buried in the ground in the aquifer?
What about the nuclear waste "buried" in the ocean in big cans that split on the way to the bottom (about 25% before landing) and spilled their contents to be swept in the currents?
What about the other cans that did not split but rusted over months and years?
What about the nuclear waste floating in the air either side of the plant?
What about the nuclear waste by the side of Ruta 15 in Mexico, and how did it get there?
What about the nuclear waste buried and unburied in the hundreds of plants?
Will we bury the trucks that carry it?
Will we bury the plants themselves, the steam generators and pressure chambers, the clothing, the chairs, the scrubs and mops, the electrical equipment, the robots and humans that clean?
To date, let us remember, we have not.
At present, the United States government is under suit by nearly every electric company in the United States for failing to complete its contract to store nuclear materials.
Dear American Electric Users -
You paid once to store this stuff when you bought your electricity.
If you are taxpayers, you are paying for the suit as well -- for the lawyers on each side, and for the settlement.
And then the stuff remains to be stored. And then the storage costs will be paid by someone.
Gee, can anyone work out who that might be? It's a good bet that the folks at Westinghouse do not believe it will come down to them.
Does anyone care to multiply annual cost by the half life of various uranium isotopes and then account for the fact that "half-life" means that half of the stuff is left?
Anyone who can swallow that should try working out the medical costs.
Geez everyone - you forgot we solved the waste issue - DU weapons!
There is no shortage of third world countries harboring freedom fighte - I mean terrorists. If we can maintain 2 -3 wars at a time the waste problem is solved.
For those proponents of nuclear power, I am an engineer and am totally against nuclear power - so take your elitist "it is the uneducated who oppose" arguements and shove them.
Also, educate yourself - here is a start - try "Carbon Free, Nuclear Free." You can download the book for free here:
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/
If you think nuclear is the answer, pony up your own money. Stop taking taxpayer subsidies and let the free market decide the best investments.
You may be an engineer but your argument is weak on science and long on vulgarity and hostility.
I referred you to the sceince in the link I referenced - I listened to the author speak and also read the book. He presents calculations on how with conservation (see the per capita comparison in the article), solar, and wind, we can go carbon free without turning to nuclear. Every year we wait, we are sceding the expertise on solar and wind to other countries and missing tremendous opportunities to grow our manufacturing capabilities and economy.
Please point me to a different cradle to grave analysis on fossil fuel consumption that includes uranium mining, transport both to and from the plants (for waste), and water usage associated with nuclear plants. I believe it is a net looser.
You also mention the problem of burning fossil fuels over the next 30 years - most of these nuclear plants will not be on line within that time frame. If we took that huge investment of cash going into the black hole of nuclear and subsidized centralized and non-centralized wind and solar and conservation measures, we would get much, much more savings over the next 30 years than if we waited for nuclear plants to come on line. If we just took those billions of dollars and fitted all municipal buildings with solar panels, we could see immediate effects within a couple of years.
Finally, please tell where I was wrong on DU weapons - the current disposal method of choice!
I just take offense to the commentor who states if we only were educated about nuclear we would all see it as the panacea.
http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=238
Not sure what you mean by net looser.
Definitely some CO-2 is generated in the life cycle.
Definitely it is far less than coal.
Over a billion tons of coal is burned in the US every year.
Double that for China.
Also important are the arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxides nitrous oxides, and yes radioactive matter that coal plants fling right into the air without any regulation.
Thousands of deaths are caused every year from coal fired air pollution.
30 years of refraining from building new nuclear power plants did not result in use of wind and solar. It caused an explosion in the amount of coal we burn.
Solar and wind are up against an insurmountable obstacle.
Utilities can't make as much money off of free and endless sources of fuel.
That is the only explanation for why these aren't a more significant source of energy.
The best solution is for individuals to set up their own systems for electricity generation--personal windmills and solar panels.
I tried to do this a few years ago, but it is very expensive, limited and works best with new construction instead of retrofit.
The technology is just creeping along--obviously it is intentionally thwarted.
Finally, the use of DU weaponry is despicable, but that is not a necessary outcome of nuclear power.
So we generally agree - the best solution is for individuals to set up their own systems for electricity generation. We need some sort of grid as a backup, but if everyone was able to give back to the grid as they produce, the demand on the central grid could be substantially reduced. In addition, there is the potential to develop energy storage devices if we put money into the research. As you stated the problem is the cost.
But I argue instead of compromising and accepting nuclear, we need to force those subsidies going to nuclear and fossil fuels into the renewable industry - both large and small scale. I agree with the arguement of nuclear versus coal, but by accepting that arguement rather than starting an arguement of renewables versus nuclear, we have already lost. We will also sink billions of taxpayer dollars into the nuclear industry and bleed the renewable industry dry, giving nuclear an unfair advanatage. And some accident will happen at some point in time - costing us even more.
The $1,500 tax credit for energy efficiency is just a joke. If it were $20,000 (or more) we would be talking about a serious potential for many homes to upgrade. I would upgrade to solar immediately if they upgraded the tax credit.
I am very skeptical that this will happen, but by accepting the nuclear arguement, we accept the framing posed by the utilities, corporations, and their bribed representatives. I find it akin to the health care debate...single-payer is the answer but many on the left accepted the frame and compromised down to a public option without any fight. What we will now have is something even further to the right of the initial compromise.
The net looser comment was in regards to wind/solar/renewables - I agree it is probably a winner compared to coal.
DU weapons are not a necessary outcome, but it is an outcome that is occurring without hinderance of any sort at this point in time. If we produced less DU, we would produce less DU weapons.
Yep. Agreed. I think a big failure of the environmental movement is that it considers nuclear the biggest problem. Coal has had a free pass for all of these years. No protests, no scrutiny while new plants are going up all across the country.
Coal is the biggest and most immediate problem.
The cleanest energy could also be the cheapest and the most prevalent, but the entrenched industries are very powerful... I'm sure everyone on this page knows that all too well.
Both coal and nuclear are equally dangerous. We could set up our own solar panels and wind mills but there is a "little pesky thing" called HOA (Homeowners Association) which even Algore ran into while trying to set up his solar panels on his big mansion. The environmental movement needs to address the HOA hell so that people living in apartments, condos, townhouses, and even homes tied to HOA can actually be allowed to set up their solar panels, wind mills, and clothes line in place of energy guzzling washers and dryers.
"There is no shortage of third world countries harboring freedom fighte - I mean terrorists. If we can maintain 2 -3 wars at a time the waste problem is solved."
Very amusing, thanks.
The Canadian Government has determined that the costs JUST TO STORE the waste nuclear bundles produced by the Canadian Nuclear Industry to this point will be some 24 billion dollars. Given the history of escalating costs this number is sure to increase.
Imagine a country with 10 or 100 times that waste. We are speaking TRILLIONS just for storage of WASTE.
When one expands Nuclear Energy to provide even more energy the number of bundles needing Storage will increase. This number can not go down because the storage issue is with you for thousands of years.
Recent research has also shown that Scientists may have overestimated their ability to safely stroe Nuclear Waste. As example one metal used is copper with the belief copper will nto corrode if not exposed to Oxygen. This has since proven false via serious corrosion found on Copper Cannons of Swedish cannon recovered from the bottom of the Baltic sea.
STORING the waste in the long term is going to cost more dollars then building the Nuclear Plants themselves and it will still not be fail safe with results that would be catasrophic.
Where pro-nukers may have a point that nuclear power generation facilities 'could' be built safely, on time and under budget, fuel (and water) 'could' be obtained in reasonable ways, the plants 'could' be operated safely and reliably, and the radioactive waste 'could' be disposed of in ways that do not burden us and our descendants with high costs and serious danger, we have to consider: Who exactly, in this day and age of dishonesty and greed, could we trust to safely build and operate nuclear plants?? Right, no-one.
The powers that be like nuclear over renewable because it, like fossil, has a fuel. And fuels can be monopolized, controlled, and used to enslave the public. The problem with renewable is that once you build it, you're done.
Fantastic article to save and share. Thanks for putting out some reality to balance the nuke sham. Since France was cited in the article, I would add that France has had nuclear accidents, several of them.
Nukes are a truly bad idea whose damage that has already been done will be problematic enough for hundreds of generations to come. To add to that poisonous legacy is irresponsible beyond compare.
Lastly, if a model for energy independence is to be followed, Brazil's is much better than what is being peddled by Aris Candris.
errata -- "the American consumption of 12,900 kilowatts per person" [that would cost $11 million per person, I think you want 12,900 kW hours per year]. Power is not the same as energy. "The two reactors will produce 2,234 megawatts ... $8 million per megawatt" ($8/Watt). [At 90% nuclear capacity factor -- 365 days per year * 24 hours per day * 90% = 7884 Watt hours per watt power per year. "FPL just started operating a 25-megawatt solar-power plant in DeSoto County. Cost: $152 million, or $6 million per megawatt -- $2 million cheaper than the projected cost of the nuclear reactors." [At 25% solar capacity factor - about the best solar can do - 365 days per year * 24 hours per day * 25% = 2190 Watt hours per watt power per year.]
I am a solar energy researcher and a climate activist (and do not like nuclear). We in the USA spend $700 billion per year just on fossil fuels (mine source prices) and would spend a comparable amount on cost effective renewables for fossil displacements.
One square meter of sunlight in Colorado climate is worth more than one barrel of oil per year. (5.5 kWh/day/m^2 average direct normal sunlight). The advanced cost of solar concentrators is less than $150 per meter (google solar dish for an example). Solar energy is cheaper than natural gas, much cheaper than oil. A new solar collector is cheaper than a new coal burner.
This energy analysis goes way beyond the narrow focus on electrical power and proves humanity can depend on the economics of solar energy. The press needs to educate their readers on the costs of energy. It is not complicated and is important.
-- Doug
It just goes to show that people will do ANYTHING, anything to avoid using less energy. It appears the US and everyone else is willing to risk the very planet, their future and their childrens' future to be able to maintain the current consumer lifestyle for just a while longer. Amazing.
Excellent Article - most informative.. And Fine comments.
I for one think that the projection for more energy from centralized source is over-estimated. Mainly because, cost will drive down the need. miniaturization of products that use energy etc.
Replaced by local harness of power. Completely de-centralized.
Hence, the power makers will most likely have no future in this country to build large power plants... they will have to miniaturize power plants.
toophat for you!
Tristam fell for the bait. There is no projected demand growth for energy. It's pure fiction. USans only buy the fiction because they've been trained to believe its economic growth or perish. Exactly what will perish? USans' claim to world dominance, the "privilege" of looking down on all other societies with hubris, pity and contempt. The other element that makes this fiction self-fulfilling is psychological - the human tendencies to trust "authority", and to ignorantly habituate material indulgences. In the USan sphere of influence, supply drives demand. This has to cease before it's too late. Market demands must be restricted to the informed will of the people to support the better interests of the society.
Oh my here we go again. One reason we need so much energy production is that the human population continues to breed like rabbits or maybe the comparison should be the other way round. Unfortunately cheap power will continue to accelerate that trend. Fluctuating power sources such as solar and wind can only work if we have separate facilities to handle a base power load and quick start facilities. Unless we are prepared to have electric power only when the wind blows or the sun shines. Nuclear plants historically operate 90% of the time day or night and there is a long historical record with 450 reactors operating world wide. Incidentally any comparison of capital cost for installed megawatt capacity have to include a utilization factor. So for wind turbines you have to multiply the cost by 5 and for nuclear by 1.1, not to mention adjustments to be made for facility lifetimes.
The nuclear safety issue is always colored by nuclear weapon comparisons and Chernobyl. Neither of which is a reasonable comparison. The Chernobyl design could never have been licensed in this country or in most industrial countries for civilian power generation. None of the commercial designs used could ever explode in fact slowing the neutrons down rather than speeding them up is a crucial design feature for sustained power generation. Most of the past, well publicized nuclear environmental issues were created in a race to develop weapons capability under all out wartime conditions and much has been learnt since. One can only cringe today when the threat of terrorism is inflated by our politicians to justify outlandish proposals in other fields of endeavor. I guess politically we haven’t come far
People cannot be afraid of radiation per se because they will regularly submit to doses of radiation in hospitals which are as near lethal as you can get without actually killing you. This is based a cost benefit analysis determined by themselves or others which sometimes is only marginally positive. There is no public outcry from such procedures but people raise all kind of objections to nuclear power generation, when the cost benefit ratio is so overwhelmingly in its favor and the radiation and other risks are negligible.
Nothing comes for free and we pay a substantial price today for our “always available” power generation systems, in return for very substantial benefits. If you have never experienced anything but cheap, always available power then this becomes your baseline and somehow it just happens. Our current energy sources were determined largely by trial and error over hundreds of years and we had tried everything else and found them lacking one way or another. Mother nature is cruel, even wood burning stoves turn out to be horribly toxic if you get to breathe too much of the smoke generated. Windmill owners in days gone by did not waste any time switching to electrical energy from the grid when they found out that they could give a delivery date for a bag of flour and stick to it, despite wind conditions. Even though the mill sails turned for free and they had to give up hard cash to the power company.
The nuclear waste is a much cited issue but it is mainly a political issue, portrayed as a fundamental technical issue. We have the engineering know how and economic resources to deal with it effectively and efficiently. The fossil record demonstrates clearly that geological environments can remain stable for millions of years when correctly chosen and are relatively common
Technology has improved a lot and new options have become available for our use, but no wind is no wind no matter how fancy your windmill. Here in the North East it gets cold and dark for long periods at a time requiring that solar gets some substantial augmentation as well, I don’t think that lithium batteries will cut it despite the substantial progress which has been made in that field. And yeah, yeah, I know about long distance DC transmission but that has plenty of problems too. Maybe we should all go and live in Phoenix and pipe the water in instead.
Sadly the concepts of witchcraft remain alive and well underneath the surface in our society and nuclear power generation may only become generally acceptable as one of the sources of power to satisfy our civilizations insatiable appetite after we have literally exhausted every other avenue.
Burt burt burt, you forgot to mention the undeniable fact that nuclear power requires plenty of water with which to operate. One drought and power failures keep on rolling. But don't bother going to France to find out for yourself. Just keep dreaming.
You write:
"Fluctuating power sources such as solar and wind can only work if we have separate facilities to handle a base power load and quick start facilities. Unless we are prepared to have electric power only when the wind blows or the sun shines."
By golly you are so right! No way to store or efficiently distribute energy from wind and sun! The smartest people in the world will just be totally stumped by that one! We will only have energy when the sun shines! WE'LL DIE!
i am stunned by the emptiness of the anti-renewable arguments.
About a year ago I read an article about the invention of a way to store solar energy for use on cloudy days. It promised to be quite revolutionary. I'm sure the patenting process is under way. I wish like anything that I could find that article now, to link it here, but I can't. Also someone developed a coating, like a paint, to capture solar energy, instead of bulky heavy solar panels. I'll hunt down these articles and try to come back with them later but right now I'm trying not to get caught blogging at work again.
Some guy working as a chemical engineer at a GM R&D Center wrote something about this back in August of this year:
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/icosse09/webprogram/Paper145980.html
I don't know which article you are referring to that you came across last year but I found an article by Matt Wald titled "New Ways to Store Solar Energy for Nighttime and Cloudy Days" in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/earth/15sola.html
I had come across an article on a promising liquid technology for storing solar energy:
http://www.physorg.com/news155569564.html
Storing the heat directly is a potentially promising approach but notice that it is still pretty much in the realm of research and often again involves handling some pretty nasty materials in a highly energized state. Then you have to battle conversion efficiency,operating protocols and cost issues.
i'm also surprised that no one has even mentioned the horrific costs of mining.
Whole communities have been destroyed, and whole swaths of the USA have seen spikes in cancers from mining and from being downwind from mine tailings.
And most of these communities are Native American.
And this is only one of many plainly horrific issues with nuclear. The threat of accident, the threat of terrorism, the multiple uses for war which cannot just be wished away, the need to store the waste for periods longer than the existence of civilization so far...
A plume of radioactively contaminated groundwater from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is inexorably moving toward the Columbia River.
Why extract this poison from the Earth's crust? Power, and profit, and centralization, and war. That is why.
"Clean nuclear" is as much of an utter oxymoron as "Clean coal".
We need strong leadership, clear direction, and massive investment in renewables.
want to find a liar of epic proportions? look for an
executive working in cong!