Posted on 05/12/2005 5:22:56 AM PDT by OESY
Ever since the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, effectively no new nuclear plants have been licensed by the U.S. However, it is now recognized that the safety measures at this plant worked, so that only a very small amount of radiation was released into the atmosphere, and this had no apparent harmful effects on health. The excellent safety record at American nuclear plants, growing imports of oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels at high prices, and increased concern over the pollution and global warming caused by fossil fuels, has made the case for reducing regulatory obstacles to new American nuclear power plants compelling.
Even though no U.S. nuclear plants have been started for 25 years, old plants have raised output much closer to their capacity. As a result, nuclear power currently supplies about 20% of all electricity generated in the U.S....
As operating and construction costs of nuclear power plants have come down greatly since 1980, these plants have become competitive in costs with plants fueled by oil or natural gas, even at prices for these fuels.... If their presently high prices continue, nuclear power would be cheaper even than coal-fired power plants. In addition, several countries are building nuclear plants with new technologies, such as pebble-bed reactors that use helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. They appear to be much cheaper, and safer. In any case, the marketplace, along with due allowance for pollution and safety, should determine whether nuclear power is competitive....
Nuclear power has other advantages. Uranium is abundant, easily transported and efficient in producing energy....
Whereas coal, oil, and even natural gas power plants emit substantial quantities of CO2, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants per megawatt of electricity generated, nuclear power plants release negligible levels of harmful pollutants....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If the global warming fear-mongers really believed their rhetoric, they would be knocking down doors for more nuclear power plants. But somehow the Greenies only seem to be interested on placing taxes on rich countries and distributing it to poor countries. For some reason real solutions are ignored for phony ones.
As an advocate of coal liquafaction that is now exceedingly clean and green, I have remaining questions about nuclear that only time and greater research can heal. The notion that there is no environmental impact misses the necessity to safely dispose of spent fuel. (An unresolved problem at this point.) And, of course, Chernobyl and 3MileIsland are both real concerns. They might be remote, but the results would be so devastating that it is considered to be high risk. (low probability + catastrophic results = high risk)
Actually they are building a facility as we speak in the US that alledgedly can turn nuclear waste into a safe and useful material. It is being built for other materials, but they claim they can handle nuclear waste.
I have a variety of reasons for supporting clean coal liquafaction...primarily economic. We don't need to import the coal; we have an over 250 year supply. All mining, processing, transportation, distribution, refining, sales, and marketing costs would create huge numbers of jobs in our economy and ALL of that money would stay in the USA.
There is no such benefit from nuclear. Given the exploration into clean nuclear, coal will buy us lots of time to get the nuclear equation right before we launch into that direction. (PS: aren't the major sources of uranium overseas? Therefore, why trade one despotic cartel for another one?)
They also claimed that they could deliver oil at about $15 a barrel (it's closer to $80) and that the process using turkey offal would be odor-free (it reaks to high heaven for miles.)
Go here
Not sure why that's a non-working link... sorry. Here's the URL:
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Changing-World-Technologies12apr05.htm
Do you have a link that details how clean and green this process is? I know there are a number of demonstration plants up and running in the US (Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant in Beulah, North Dakota; Polk Power Station near Mulberry, Florida, etc.) but I can't find any hard info on what the true cost of generating a barrel of oil or bcf of gas is. Do you know where I can?
1) Please compare and contrast the Soviet RBMK Reactor design with US BWR and PWR designs.
2) Please outline the sequence of events during the TMI reactor accident, and discuss the real-world consequences of it.
3) Please discuss the chemical and isotopic composition of "spent reactof fuel". Consider the known uses of the substances contained therein. Extra Credit: What is the Savannah River Facility?
I posted a few threads pre-election on the subject. I'll see if I can find them.
Sure it makes sense. But what does that have to do with anything?
The other problem is the conventional wisdom that there is a "solution" to the energy question. There are folks that line up behind conservation, coal, nucs, natural gas, solar, wind farms, hydro, etc like they are choosing a ballclub to root for. Of course, it's perfectly obvious that the best energy solution always depends on local factors as well as national and global economics. Hydro works in Quebec but not the Sahara Desert. Solar won't work in Northern Europe. Cost, environmental factors, safety, reliability, availability, etc. all have to be considered.
Ah, forget it, it's easier to be a demagogue than think!
No benefit from nuclear?
I think that no pollution is a benefit.
We have plentiful supplies of uranium here in the US. Far more than would be needed if all our power plants were nuclear.
bad quote; I actually wrote, "no SUCH benefit." indicating a referral to the preceding paragraph which spoke of great economic benefits coming from job creation in the coal industry.
That's good to know. I thought the major supplies were in Africa.
If the US were to convert all the oil and natural gas power plants to nuclear, I'm pretty sure that the liberals in Congress would try and turn all the US uranium sites into uranium versions of ANWR...
And then force us to buy it from Africa.
And I would oppose that in a heartbeat.
Independence is what I seek as much as energy. I want the Arabs back to riding camels, drinking bad coffee, and smoking bad tobacco.
Solar panel production generates poisonous and caustic chemical waste that must be kept from release into the environment.
Nuclear power generates radioactive waste that must be kept from release into the environment.
It's not rocket science in either case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.