Everyone with half a brain and without a vested interest would like power that is cheap, carbon neutral and presents minimal risk to population and environment.
How do we get there? Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and improve the alternatives. And how is that going? by any stretch of the imagination non-nuclear renewables have still a way to go and cannot form the backbone of supply.
So the energy gap has to be filled in the meantime. I think nuclear fits the bill and I’d like its future to be decided by a sober assessment of risk and critical analysis of how to improve it.
Perversely, those who are anti-nuclear would be wise to embrace it for the next 50 years or so. It buys time to develop alternatives whereas demonising it drives us back to fossil fuels.
Someone asked what harm could be caused if the worst happened to a nuclear power-plant.
Well of course it would be bad. But even Chernobyl-bad doesn’t compare to the harm caused by normal running of fossil fuels plants.
The equation is simple, if we turned off all the nuclear plants tomorrow the net harm to people and the environment would be higher. Unpopular but true. The mundane deaths from fossil fuel pollution are less “exciting” than being reduced to a glowing crisp, but no less real.
Where do you live and where have you travelled? Even if your little home is off grid and all wind and solar odds are high that your home was made of bits that used coal in its production.
The silly absolutist either-or rhetoric in this thread is unsurprising but disappointing nevertheless.
Coal in America is plentiful and cheap (so long as the carbon is not priced) and almost as much so in China. It is not going to go away. Its use can be reduced and its harm reduced (by charging for its real costs), but there is no realistic adoption of nuclear or nuclear plus renewables, even adding in natural gas, that would completely replace it.
Nuclear is expensive and no one is willing to build it without having governments absorb much of that cost. It also can only be brought on line so fast and clearly taking the time to build it right is required. Inspections that show poor quality concrete used, or faulty welds in the steel containment vessels that force expensive delays, as has occurred for some recent projects (such as Areva’s Finnish one), are not the work of extremists trying to kill nuclear; they are however part of the reason it always costs so much over budget. But it can be done right. As Secretary of Energy Chu points out, the newer designs are safer than this 40 year old version:
Renewables can, nay must, be part of the mix, but they cannot do it alone. Another report of Chu’s comments have him wisely putting like this:
My ongoing concern with nuclear has always been waste disposal, but to be honest I haven’t kept up with any recent developments in this regard (apart from the Yucca Mountain political foofarah). I know fast neutron reactors are supposed to seal with some of the longer-lived waste but not much else. Is the situation improving at all?
I agree that we need to reduce our dependence on coal and oil, that we will need to development a variety of energy sources and that nuclear will almost inevitably be one of them. And I think the situation in Japan is far too atypical to become a referendum on the safety of nuclear power plants, although obviously there are lessons to be learned.
You breathe out carbon dioxide all the time. You also breath it in. For heaven’s sake, CO2 is no imminent threat to civilization. Do we need to cut back? Sure.
Nuclear isn’t going to help anytime in the next 10-30 years, and that’s if we started building the crap out of these things 20 years ago. It’s not 20 years ago anymore. That nuclear ship has sailed.
TMI did not cause any deaths, nor caused any injuries outside the plant.
I lived in proximity to the Fermi plant near Detroit (it’s not actually in Detroit) and I was OK with that.
I live downwind from several nuke plants in Illinois. I am actually more worried about an accident at the BP chemical refinery I am also downwind of. How unconcerned am I about the nuke plants? Back when I was flying I used to use the updraft from the cooling there to get a free boost to a higher altitude. Yes, I used to ride the hot air coming off one of those Evil Nookleear Plants, I’m that unconcerned. (Since 9/11 the government has asked us to stop doing that, it seems it makes the ignorant nervous. They don’t know that a small plane hitting a nuke plant is just going to crumble into tinfoil scraps and probably not even scratch the paint on the building. But we comply anyway, because it’s bad form to scare the neighbors, even the stupid ones.)
Would I be complacent about an ancident and radiation leak? No - but I wouldn’t panic, either. I wouldn’t hesitate to evacuate if told do so. But, as I said, I’m far more concerned about needing to do so due to the local chemical refinery than the local nukes.
Personally, I’ve experienced more tornadoes, floods, and attempted assaults against my person than I have industrial accidents - realistically, the odds are very low and since I don’t work at any of those plants even if something did happen I’m unlikely to suffer permanent harm or be killed. I might be horribly inconvenienced and lose all my stuff, which would make me very sad, but stuff is replaceable and it will prevent me from becoming a hoarder.
Our problem isn’t just that we can’t produce enough clean renewable energy. Where are the transmission lines so we can use it where it’s needed? Why isn’t Texas powering Mexico or something? Why aren’t batteries and other energy storage systems getting more glory these days?
I don’t fully agree with that. The various IPCC projections over the next fifty years assume increasing per capita energy demands from developing countries, in particular China and India, and that’s about half the world population-wise. What the West does for energy, with its stagnant population and per capita energy use fairly steady, may not be so important.
China is having 3rd gen PWRs built and acquiring a lot of the technology into the bargain. Eventually they’ll be building their own, and they may end up exporting them to us. Meanwhile India is keen to develop thorium reactors to take advantage of their thorium reserves. China and India together can affect the global carbon trajectory very significantly. Subscribe to read
What effect the events in Japan will have on this aren’t clear, but I’m betting not much. As I pointed out in post #7, the Onagawa plant was closer to the earthquake epicentre and it came through. (http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/MSNBC/C...col-110312.jpg.) The Fukushima General Electric Mark 1s aren’t a great design at all by todays standards but all the reactor hardware, coolant loops, turbines etc came through both the earthquake and tsunami intact and functional. It was the external power backups that failed and the Mark 1 cannot go safely from SCRAM to cold shutdown without external power. My guess is that the Chinese will look at what went wrong in Japan, look at the Westinghouse AP1000 design and possibly demand a stronger containment building, but that is all. If a Westinghouse AP1000 loses power, electromagnets holding the control rods up let them drop into the reactor, which then keeps cool through convection - no pumps or power required. The Chinese will see that there is a world of difference there. The nuclear ship may be sailing late but I’ll bet it’ll still sail and it may buy some time.
I was watching the news this morning and they were talking about the radiation levels. They were saying that currently, the max radiation at the damaged plant is spiking at 400 millisieverts per/hour…which is the equivalent of getting 4 CAT scans (which they said is about 100 millisieverts per scan). You start getting radiation sickness around 1000 millisieverts per/hour (is there a shorthand for millisievert btw? Sheesh), and a fatal does is 3500-5000 millisieverts per/hour.
I have no idea how accurate any of the above is (I took notes on my iPad but haven’t had time to cross check). The main thing they were trying to convey is that radiation is all around us every day (they took a radiation reading machine around to show that it’s naturally in many foods we eat, it’s in things like granite buildings, air travel, watching TV, etc), that the people in California who are fretting and apparently buying up all the iodine pills they can get their hands on are idiots (according to the show the radiation levels, by the time they get to California or the US west coast will be below background radiation levels), and that while it’s definitely serious the radiation type that’s being given off quickly decays (I didn’t follow this part of the discussion) and is only really harmful over extended periods…which is why they seem to be rotating the workers regularly and have dropped the numbers of workers from over 800 to 50 (and now it’s back to 180-200).
I also heard that Tokyo got hit with another 6.0 aftershock yesterday and they are still expecting more, so that part of the situation doesn’t seem to be getting any better either. Over 10,000 dead and that number is sure to rise. Up to 40,000 people without adequate shelter (though hopefully that IS getting rectified). And in the midst of all this, they are trying to also deal with this old nuclear plant that is definitely in serious condition right now.
I think that this disaster has actually solidified my support for nuclear power, as to me this disaster is off the scale for a Murphy’s Law exercise. I mean, 9.0 earthquake. Multiple nasty aftershocks. A freaking tidal wave. Takes out the backup power. 40 year old design that wasn’t the most safe even when it was designed. And yet, thus far no massive breach of the primary containment. No large scale radiation leak…yet. And if it DOES happen they have had days to evacuate and prepare the populace for the emergency. To me, this says that even in a total disaster situation this crappy old plant is doing what it was designed to do…at the least give the people time to evacuate the danger zone.
Last I heard from President Obama the other day/week, was that the US uses 1/4 of the world’s energy. So, in that respect what the US does, does matter, globally-wobally. The EU eats at least another 1/4. What the West does, is important. The West also sets the example, and drives technology. What we do, “they” will do? I hope not, when it comes to nuclear energy.
The burgeoning, rapidly developing energy-hungry world is filled with dirt-poor undereducated populations led by corrupt, incompetent, unstable governments and economies. We do not want this kind of nuclear proliferation. Truly, the Earth does not need that right now.
When you read about China building nuclear power plants, keep in mind that behemoth is not getting the majority of its power from nuke, nor will it in the next 50 years, nor will it ever. They are advancing on all fronts of the energy resource battle. They are not putting their eggs in a glow-in-the-dark basket. China can also build and operate nukes many times cheaper than the US. Well, they should be able to. Nuclear power is really expensive there, too. Not as bad as in the US, where it is and always was ridiculously expensive. It will never be cheaper. You might as well expect the minimum wage to drop to $3/hour. Nuclear power in the US will never be anything but among the most expensive of options.
You do realize that they get the majority of their power from coal, right (IIRC it’s something like 70%)? And that this isn’t likely to change substantially for China in the foreseeable future…right?
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Can we agree China in this day and age is a bit of an anachronism? They’re trying to put a man on the moon which is something we did decades and decades ago (can’t do it now, but whatevs). Should we get into some sort of nuclear energy race with China? For Earth’s sake, why?
Should we give them clean coal technology? Should we give them transmission technology? Energy storage technology as we develop it? No. Let them eventually steal it like they always do.
