COMMENTS: 10
GOP Goes off the Deep End, Proposes 100 New Nuclear Reactors in the U.S.
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first "new generation" construction projects sink in French and Finnish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the U.S. within 20 years. It explicitly welcomes "alternatives" such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "clean coal." Although it endorses some renewables, such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions.
According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month.
But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus-dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.
With this proposed legislation, the GOP makes atomic energy the centerpiece of its strategy to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power requires energy-intensive activities such as uranium mining, milling, fuel enrichment, plus other carbon expenditures for plant construction, waste management and more.
Reactors also convert buried uranium ore into huge quantities of heat, much of which becomes hot water and steam emitted into the environment. Reactors in France and elsewhere have been forced to shut because adjacent rivers have been taken to 90 degrees Fahrenheit by hot water dumped from reactor cooling systems.
None of this troubled GOP hearings this week on the future of atomic energy. There were no answers to how new reactors would be insured. Since 1957, the federal treasury has been the underwriter of last resort for potential reactor disasters. Renewed in the 2005 Bush energy plan, the commitment applies to all new reactors.
So reactors licensed to operate through 2057 -- as would be virtually certain under the GOP plan -- would extend to a full century the atomic industry's inability to cover its own risks. Neither the Obama administration nor the GOP has presented detailed plans for dealing with such disasters, or explained how they would be paid for.
Despite the GOP's endless focus on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, no significant structural upgrades have been made to protect the currently licensed 104 U.S. reactors from an air attack. The new reactors will be required to demonstrate an ability to resist a jet crash, but testing that requirement remains an open issue.
The ability to fuel this new fleet of reactors remains questionable. Reprocessing used fuel into reusable mixed oxide rods has proved dirty, expensive and dangerous.
The initial experience with building new reactors runs parallel. As reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, French-financed construction projects at Flamanville, France, and at Okiluoto in Finland have soared hugely over budget and behind schedule.
Much of the economically catastrophic experience endured by utilities and rate payers in building the first generation of reactors in the 1960s to the 1990s appears to be recurring, with even bigger deficits. The French government's front group, Areva, which is building the new plants, has sunk into serious financial and political chaos, with potentially devastating implications for this much-touted "new generation" technology.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 10 )
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jun 17, 2009 8:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Go without power. Sure we can save and use our power more efficiently but that only goes so far. Also, a large percentage of our current power comes from coal so that really isn't the answer.
2) Use more coal. Well, any environmentalist should cringe at that. As bad as nuclear power can be coal is far worse.
3) Find another way to provide power.
The choices for option #3 are looking pretty good. We have geothermal (my favorite), concentrated solar farms, wind, etc. I think it going to come down to which one of these is cheaper. Also, do not rule out third and fourth geeration nuclear power plants. In my opinion these should be fast tracked because the technology isn't there yet.
If you want to be involved in this issue then please don't just be against one thing. You have to replace it with something else, or learn to do without electricity, which we all know isn't going to happen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ok, what then...
Posted by: An0nymous187
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sheffrey on Jun 17, 2009 1:41 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Popular solar and wind energy are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. In future energy mixes they may contribute as much as 10% of all electricity generation. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land or sea would be needed, requiring enormous maintenance operations, spoiling scenic land- or sea-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative - A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), by 2050 when petroleum fuels are exhausted, only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for some 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced fast reactor technology. A serious analysis of future energy shortages by engineers (not anti-nuclear arm-chair philosophers) reveals that nuclear power is essential to rescue our children from a future economic catastrophe. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@ $1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 windy acres (@ $4.5 trillion). Ten times these numbers are needed worldwide. (Costs in 2005 dollars; for later years, multiply by inflation factor).
Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of electricity at terawatt levels is three times less with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of transmisiin lines and access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand- and rain-storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries. Aficionados of renewables usually quote peak windmill or solar station capacities, neglecting to multiply their numbers by a factor of four to account for a year-averaged availability of only 25% of peak wind or sunshine. Reactors run continuously all year at 90% capacity. Should a country limit itself to solar and wind energy, it is guaranteed to become impoverished and dependent on portable synfuels imported from other countries (future OPECs-->OSECs),who expand nuclear power before oil field depletion.
Modern nuclear plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative "coefficient of reactivity", reactor cores can only melt (an explosion is impossible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency cooling system totally fails. Worldwide mandated containment vessels today assure that all nuclear materials stay put in that case.
J.W.Eerkens, PhD
Nuclear Science & Eng'ng Institute
U of Missouri, Columbia
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nuclear Power
Posted by: An0nymous187
» Green nuclear power doesn't exist. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 17, 2009 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah... because building new power plants is a great big handout for corporations.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whealeydj on Jun 18, 2009 9:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yeah, absurd - the $10 billion proposed for that reactor could bring
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 20, 2009 12:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Power plants work by using concentrated uranium.
Nuclear waste is merely concentrated uranium that is less potent than the original uranium used when the reactor was first started.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to increase potency and fuel reactors once more.
What we need is a nuclear waste recycling system so we don't have to bury concentrated uranium.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jun 17, 2009 8:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Go without power. Sure we can save and use our power more efficiently but that only goes so far. Also, a large percentage of our current power comes from coal so that really isn't the answer.
2) Use more coal. Well, any environmentalist should cringe at that. As bad as nuclear power can be coal is far worse.
3) Find another way to provide power.
The choices for option #3 are looking pretty good. We have geothermal (my favorite), concentrated solar farms, wind, etc. I think it going to come down to which one of these is cheaper. Also, do not rule out third and fourth geeration nuclear power plants. In my opinion these should be fast tracked because the technology isn't there yet.
If you want to be involved in this issue then please don't just be against one thing. You have to replace it with something else, or learn to do without electricity, which we all know isn't going to happen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ok, what then...
Posted by: An0nymous187
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sheffrey on Jun 17, 2009 1:41 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Popular solar and wind energy are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. In future energy mixes they may contribute as much as 10% of all electricity generation. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land or sea would be needed, requiring enormous maintenance operations, spoiling scenic land- or sea-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative - A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), by 2050 when petroleum fuels are exhausted, only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for some 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced fast reactor technology. A serious analysis of future energy shortages by engineers (not anti-nuclear arm-chair philosophers) reveals that nuclear power is essential to rescue our children from a future economic catastrophe. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@ $1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 windy acres (@ $4.5 trillion). Ten times these numbers are needed worldwide. (Costs in 2005 dollars; for later years, multiply by inflation factor).
Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of electricity at terawatt levels is three times less with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of transmisiin lines and access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand- and rain-storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries. Aficionados of renewables usually quote peak windmill or solar station capacities, neglecting to multiply their numbers by a factor of four to account for a year-averaged availability of only 25% of peak wind or sunshine. Reactors run continuously all year at 90% capacity. Should a country limit itself to solar and wind energy, it is guaranteed to become impoverished and dependent on portable synfuels imported from other countries (future OPECs-->OSECs),who expand nuclear power before oil field depletion.
Modern nuclear plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative "coefficient of reactivity", reactor cores can only melt (an explosion is impossible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency cooling system totally fails. Worldwide mandated containment vessels today assure that all nuclear materials stay put in that case.
J.W.Eerkens, PhD
Nuclear Science & Eng'ng Institute
U of Missouri, Columbia
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nuclear Power
Posted by: An0nymous187
» Green nuclear power doesn't exist. nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 17, 2009 4:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah... because building new power plants is a great big handout for corporations.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: whealeydj on Jun 18, 2009 9:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yeah, absurd - the $10 billion proposed for that reactor could bring
Posted by: Paul_C
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jun 20, 2009 12:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Power plants work by using concentrated uranium.
Nuclear waste is merely concentrated uranium that is less potent than the original uranium used when the reactor was first started.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to increase potency and fuel reactors once more.
What we need is a nuclear waste recycling system so we don't have to bury concentrated uranium.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
