July 30, 2008
If John McCain becomes president, he proposes having 45 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030. He doesn't really see renewable energy happening without nuclear power.
Given that nuclear power produces 20% of the nation's total energy consumption now, this choice of energy is increasingly becoming a hot topic. Why look for new alternative sources of energy, when there's already something in place that could be expanded? It's a logical question, and a source of intense debate in Washington. But it's also of rising interest in the business world.
While T. Boone Pickens plans to spend $10 billion to build the world's largest wind farm, a neighbor of his in Amarillo Texas -- George Chapman -- has announced plans to build two large Evolutionary Power Reactors (EPR) in Amarillo. And though nuclear energy is often heralded as green energy, some environmentalists argue that nuclear waste is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions.
Comments | 17 Total
July 30, 2008 at 10:45am by Rip Empson
I'm really not sure that nuclear power as our main source of "green power" is a good idea. Certainly, there are lots of issues surrounding solar and wind power, but let's think about the dangers of nuclear power. Truly, nuclear power has direct, and severe, environmental risks. Groundwater impacts, to name one. Or the multiple ways in which large populations can be exposed to radiation in the disposal process. And what are we doing with nuclear waste? The best idea we can come up with is shooting into space? Hiding it on pluto? Nuclear power is remarkably clean in comparison with others, its efficient, and one power plant generates an enormous amount of power. But let's make sure that we stick to the portfolio approach. By 2030, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% ethanol and biodiesel, 20% hydroelectric, 20% nuclear. How about that? Can we do that?
July 30, 2008 at 11:35am by Sheldon Schwartz
It is no surprise that this 'big idea' is inspired by John McCain. An older gent for an older idea.
A new idea that could harness new technology and inspire new leadership will more than likely not come from this man.
Lets talk about new power sources - or don't they spend enuff lobbying?
July 30, 2008 at 11:48am by Rob Loach
Tim Ryan, a congress man that loves technology, briefly talks about nuclear power in this interview:
http://www.fastcompany.tv/video/the-twittering-congressman
July 30, 2008 at 12:32pm by Tom Engle
Nuclear is green in the same sense that Social Security is solvent. (It's not). We'd only be piling up more radioactive waste so someone else, namely our kids, have to deal with it. We don't need yesterday's answer here. We need tomorrow's: wind, geothermal, or solar.
July 30, 2008 at 1:47pm by David Stone
OK, nuclear may not be green but it is greener than the current alternatives. Eventually solar, geo, wind, or some yet to be discovered truly-green energy source will surpass nuclear. Until then we have to choose between soiling the world with tons of CO2 from a power plant compared to ounces of spent uranium. The greenhouse gas cycle is a death-spiral that we can not afford to follow while we wait for new technology.
July 30, 2008 at 2:25pm by Dale Thompson
I am still holding out for a solution inovlving matter, anti-matter, and dilithium crystals myself. Live long and prosper, ya'll.
July 30, 2008 at 5:31pm by Jeff Eaton
I've been reading a bit about the current global uranium deposits, and how ramping up to full dependence on nuclear power could leave us with a "peak uranium" problem no less serious than peak oil. On the other hand, it was coming from people who opposed any moves away from oil, too... Anyone heard more about that? I'm curious what's legit and what's spin...
July 30, 2008 at 6:44pm by Lee Sorenson
since time began the quest has been to maintain fire and water today we know we cannot burn water but we can burn hydrogen and oxygen and the sun is the biggest fire in the galaxy
July 30, 2008 at 6:44pm by Tyler Hernnadez
This is a test
July 30, 2008 at 6:44pm by Lee Sorenson
since time began the quest has been to maintain fire and water today we know we cannot burn water but we can burn hydrogen and oxygen and the sun is the biggest fire in the galaxy using solar photovoltaic electricity to seperate hydrogen for fuel and we can leave the petrolem companies to making cheap plastic toys
July 30, 2008 at 6:53pm by Lance Kind
There isn't much Uranium in the world. It's another non-renewable resource.
July 30, 2008 at 7:52pm by Carel Two-Eagle
The only way nuclear energy will become our most significant source of green energy is if it makes us all glow green. Provided we survive the diseases caused by exposure to nuclear "waste", which he & others of his ilk want to bury in our horse-Indns' Sacred Places. John McCain is, once again, full of baloney. And other, less savory things. Like terminal ignorance. Go away, John!
July 30, 2008 at 7:59pm by Carel Two-Eagle
The ONLY way nuclear energy will ever be a source of 'green' energy is if we all begin to glow green from exposure to nuclear power sources and their horrendously toxic 'waste'. Logic and my degree+ in chemistry tell me that anything with a half-life in the 10's of thousands of years is too toxic to mess with, and no matter how you spin it, it is not green, nor will it ever be. John McCain is full of baloney and other less savory "stuff" here. But then, he & others of his ilk want to bury nuclear 'waste' in our horse-Indns' Sacred Places, too. Go away, John! Preferably back under the bush you've spent your life under. You and your opinion in this regard are a disaster waiting for a place to happen, but with luck, you & the disaster won't happen here. We only get one earth..
July 30, 2008 at 10:53pm by Guy Whitcroft
We need to get past this idea that Nuclear Power is inherently unsafe. Any technology can be unsafe for the planet - look at the enormous damage being done by fossil fuels today!
The question should be about how safe it can be made.
Todays technology allows us to produce nuclear power extremely safely. France is a great example where something like 80% of its electricity is generated by nuclear power stations, and they've never had an incident. In fact the only problems (very minor ones) have been with the waste disposal company and this is unlikely to recur in the future.
As for disposal of spent fuel - great success has been had in sinking it many kilometers below the earth in geologically stable areas. This puts it well out of harms way and allows nature to take its course. Perhaps, in future, it will be possible to put the spent fuel into subduction zones and allow the earth's mantle to reprocess it, but for now we have proven technology in burying it deep.
Solar and wind power are nowhere near efficient enough at present to produce sufficient energy, and we have a planetary crisis. We need to find clean (non CO2 producing) sources of enormous energy production quickly or face climate change consequences that we might not easily recover from.
Guy W
July 30, 2008 at 11:47pm by Michael Crowl
Carel - my degree+ in chemical engineering says the opposite.
Nuclear power really is the only way we currently have of completely sustainable, reliable, affordable green power. I mean - the wind blows less hard one day or a it's a cloudy day outside, what do you do? All nuclear power plants run at 100% power all the time - unless during a refueling outage which occurs once every 12-24 months in most plants.
A half life in nuclear waste of thousands of years may pose a problem, but you're all missing the point. It's a problem that can be bypassed.
In Europe where nuclear programs, such as France and the UK, are more advanced, nuclear waste goes through nuclear reprocessing in order to take the products of waste and throw them back into the reactor allowing it to undergo fission - again. The extremely radioactive bi products of fission make up less than 5% of the nuclear waste - allowing less storage space needed.
U-235 may be a limited resource, but certain reactors do not even need U-235 to perform fission and can use U-238 (non-radioactive) as fuel, such as what is used in Canadian CANDU reactors and other breeder reactors. If you think at any point we are running out of U-238, U-235 the uranium currently used in the US for fission makes up less than 1% of the total worldwide uranium.
Nuclear accidents have always been a possibility, but especially in the United States, but new breakthroughs in plant design, such as passive safety systems in new generation III+ reactors (AP1000, EPR, ACR, etc.), seem to be making an accident less likely.
After TMI, the nuclear industry in the United States received a rude awakening. Speaking from the stand point of someone in the industry, the whole industry CANNOT afford for an event that destroys public relations in the way TMI did to happen again. As much as every power plant is a business and every engineering firm is out for themselves, ultimately they all work together in order to ensure if a problem happens in one plant, all of the other plants will know.
Both TMI and Chernobyl were caused by human error. After TMI in the US, INPO was founded in order to better train plant operators to ensure our safety. Anything's possible but fortunately, we've learned from our mistakes and in the event of another nuclear accident the nuclear industry will be better prepared to combat it.
July 30, 2008 at 11:51pm by Carlos Cerezo
Well, considering that "low-level" nuclear waste usually takes from 10 to 50 years to decay; which means that it "stops" to emit radiation in such term; and also considering that "high-level" nuclear waste can last in some cases over 100,000 years emitting radiation, I would be "nuts" if I ever consider nuclear power a "green energy". Is he thinking in the future generations of the planet? Don't think so!
July 30, 2008 at 11:56pm by Gretchen Huizinga
Nuclear power is SO much more safe than its opponents would have us believe that it's just beyond frustrating to listen to the old, tired Greenpeace-y, Chernobyl-y rhetoric any more. France is practically running itself on nuclear energy and they still make delicious non-radioactive cheese from non-radioactive goats. Nuclear power is one excellent tool that we should have more of in our energy belt. We're foolish to cow-tow to people whose rhetoric has not kept up with technology.