US Nuclear Power Industry Poised For a Comeback

ThousandStars sends us to The Wall Street Journal for a report that momentum for nuclear energy is waxing in the US. "For the first time in decades, popular opinion is on the industry's side. A majority of Americans thinks nuclear power, which emits virtually no carbon dioxide, is a safe and effective way to battle climate change, according to recent polls. At the same time, legislators are showing renewed interest in nuclear as they hunt for ways to slash greenhouse-gas emissions. The industry is seizing this chance to move out of the shadow of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and show that it has solved the three big problems that have long dogged it: cost, safety and waste."

Comments

Not Carbon Free

[hardburn]

A majority of Americans thinks nuclear power, which emits virtually no carbon dioxide . . .

Nuclear plants require a large containment building, which takes a lot of concrete. Lots. That concrete puts out gigantic amounts of CO2 when it's initially made.

However, it does reabsorb CO2 as it cures over the building's lifetime. It takes decades, but it's eventually carbon neutral. It also doesn't come with all the other junk being dumped into the atmosphere that comes from coal like heavy metals, sulfur, NOx, and radioactive isotopes (yes, quite a bit more than the dirtiest nuclear plant would).

You shouldn't have to distort things to promote Nuclear.

Re:FP

[Moryath]

Look a little further.

If not for people like Carter (who put into place the first US prohibition on nuclear fuel recycling, which would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do with our so-called "nuclear waste"), Obama, and the left-wing environmental wack-jobs who made it impossible to set up a new nuclear plant anywhere, we'd have a lot less reliance on oil/coal today. Probably not total (there are things, like cars, that work best off oil fuel, to say nothing of the plastics industry) but we'd have a heck of a lot less coal or oil electric generation at the very least.

And why did Carter put that in? On the idea that it would serve as an "example" to other nations who would then not refine nuclear fuel for things like weapons. Let's see - how did that work for North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? India? I see that it did almost nothing.

The question of Solar is whether you can get it ubiquitous. Up until recently, putting it on roofs on homes was cost-prohibitive for most people (the "running cost" of maintaining them and keeping them clean, the initial roof modifications to handle the added weight, proper mooring for the old rotator-types in case there were a major windstorm, and the initial production costs of the solar panels themselves). Most other "renewable" sources are at best, unreliable; windfarms continually take damage if the wind's not "just right" (not to mention the occasional mechanical malfunction) and generate "peak power" only at very specific conditions. Solar farms work only so well without direct, unimpeded light; a few days of overcast skies can have you shipping in power from other areas.

And of course there's the initial battery costs and the running cost of maintaining batteries to provide power during "non-producing" times, plus the toxic chemicals associated with those batteries.

Going after foreign oil isn't going to do a whole lot. On the other hand, get us enough nuclear plants and we can wean off almost everything else while we work out the battery/fuel-cell tech necessary for an alternative to oil.

Here and now.

[shmlco]

You realize, of course, that CA and AK production would produce at best 5% of the oil we consume on an annual basis?

And even if we drill here and now, MULTINATIONAL oil companies could just as easily ship the oil drilled here and now off to Japan and China, who are more than willing to pay for oil.

Worse, drilling more oil means burning more oil, which spews even more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere. Sorry, but doing more of the same simply isn't an option.

Here's a better idea. Research and build alternative energy sources, and do it here. We cut down on pollution, contribute less to global CO2 emissions, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our need to constantly intervene in the Middle East, dramatically slash our import trade deficit, and, oh yeah, create tens of thousands of new jobs here in the US. And probably create a major new export industry to boot.

Now, those are tech jobs that you may not be qualified for, but if we keep the US economy afloat Walmart will always need greeters and stockboys. :)

BTW. If I'd been president a few years ago, I would have hit the automakers with MUCH higher MPG standards, and mandated a significant excise tax on oversized trucks and SUVs. We can easily cut foreign oil consumption by at least a third just by being smarter about what we drive, and by not playing He-Man with our off-road SUVS that never go off-road.

I use hydro power and public transit

[Rix]

So I don't need to make ascetic sacrifices.

Regardless, it will take years to get any sort of power plant operational. People in coal country should be taxed to force them to make such sacrifices, until an alternate is brought online. Asking nicely won't get you anywhere.

Re:Do the math, a real example

[supercell]

carbon pollution is a myth. It is deemed "pollution" by those mis-informed or have an agenda, such as tax revenue.

Re:FP

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

All that for a few thousand carribou, a few hundred foxes and rodents, and some bears

wow. just wow. You must be one of those chaps who lives in a trailer park, chews tobacco, considers having sex with your sister juz fine, and by jeezuz, never misses an episode of Jerry Springer, coz, by golly-gosh, my momma is on next week!

particularly the carribou, actually do better around the pipes.

more wow. What happens when that pipe breaks? The carribou do just fine without our "help", btw.

Thanks to people like you with your fuck-the-wildlife approach -- much like ol' bushy-boy who I'm sure you consider to be your personal saviour -- we're now causing extinctions on an unprecedented scale.

Sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but you really sound like an idiot.

Re:FP

[Rufty]

Another 20 years? Nope, if we're lucky it's another 2.