Posted on 09/06/2008 6:50:59 PM PDT by Clairity
Moore, founder of environment watchdog Greenpeace, said since the '70s, activists have overreacted to the threats posed by nuclear energy, while ignoring its benefits "as if all things nuclear were evil."
Even the infamous Three Mile Island incident near Middletown, Penn., is no reason for irrational fears, said Moore, whose group is a grassroots movement that aims to unite business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor communities to support nuclear energy.
As a result, there are some 104 nuclear plants safely operating today in the United States, Moore said.
"Nuclear energy is not a nuclear weapon," he said.
And unlike fossil fuels, producing electricity with nuclear technology doesn't release greenhouse gases that pose health risks to people, Moore said.
Other alternatives, such as wind turbines and solar panels, are "unreliable" because he said they depend on the elements and can only operate part of the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
This is an article about what Moore said, and here is an article written by Moore himself:
My View: Nuclear energy can boost jobs, economy
http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/09/my_view_nuclear_energy_can_boo.html
“The latest round of plant closings and production cutbacks by General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. underscores the need for Michigan to diversify its economy.
Nuclear energy, which already generates more than a quarter of the state’s electricity safely and cost-effectively, also boosts local economies and produces emission-free power.
Nationwide, the country’s 104 reactors provide 20 percent of the nation’s power.
Most of these reactors will continue to operate well into this century. With more than 30 new reactors under consideration, the U.S. nuclear energy industry will provide tens of thousands of jobs to Americans — all types of engineering and plant operation positions, for example — in addition to all manner of highly compensated work for tradespeople.
Nuclear energy also offers a way to spur growth without sacrificing our environment. Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, every year Michigan’s four operating nuclear facilities prevent 27.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere.”
lemme see...
1. No buying from kooky Arabs
2. No CO2 AT ALL
3. Technology is old, proven, and well-developed
4. Fuel is in USA, Africa, Canda, Oz, and other reliable allies
5. Cheap
6. Pebble Bed reactors currently under construction in China, etc....
Interestingly enough, the founder of Greenpeace is promoting it.
France gets80% of their electricity from nuclear, they recycle nuclear fuel ( we should do that also, solves the problem of nuclear waste storage), so there is no reason we couldn’t do the same.
I am not a big fan of Greenpeace, but this man has obviously kept his brain in the “on” position. Some time ago, I was an student computer network administrator at a small, well-regarded liberal arts college in New England. When I found that the enviro activists there weren’t just against nukes, but even against HYDRO, I knew these people had no interest in the real world.
The reason for this has to do with the tremendous amount of capital each plant will require coupled with the significant amount of time that capital will be tied up until a plant starts to produce power.
A plant could easily cost over $7 billion and take almost 10 years to build. Those capital needs will compete in the markets (either the debt or the equity markets depending on how each project in financed), and increase the cost of capital for other business activities. For a few plants, this will not be a problem. If we want to push for 100 plants, we could be looking at the better part of a TRILLION dollars, money will have to come into the US capital markets from elsewhere.
There are only so many plants that can be under construction at a given time due to manpower and industrial capacity constraints. If we want to go past those limits, we will greatly increase the cost of each plant we build.
Do we want to have to invite the Saudi or Russian sovereign wealth funds to (once again) lend us money for critically important US projects?
We are far better off setting the policy and incentive environment for more US energy and letting the market decide how to fill the need.
Let us start with drill here, drill now while unleashing as many other resources and innovations as possible, including nuclear. (I have high hopes for pebble bed technologies, but if we are in a rush, utilities will be especially reluctant to take any extra risks.)
The reason we aren’t a high percentage nuclear now is due to idiots like this guy. Too little, too late.
I think eventually the US will be able to convert to Nuclear power, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Nuclear power for electricity to heat and light our homes and eventually charge our cars. I do believe that until we make the conversion to nuclear energy, natural gas will be the bridge.
Where is there evidence of an unconsidered rush?
thanks to jane fonda and 3 mile island,
we don’t have much nuclear.
Pebble bed reactors:
Instead of having comparitively large rods, PBR’s have like a half million “pebbles” —tennis ball-sized pebbles are made of a kind of graphite. Inside is U235 and a coating of ceramic.
The cooling is provided by an inert or semi-inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide.
The passive, simple, and reliable safety system removes the need for redundant, active safety systems.
Because the reactor is designed to handle high temperatures, it can cool by natural circulation and still remain intact in accident scenarios. Also, the gases do not dissolve contaminants or absorb neutrons as water does, so the core has less in the way of radioactive fluids.
The South Africans and Chinese are really into PBR’s.
The last generation of nukes were each handmade to different specifications, like so many ships in bottles. Today we have standardized designs that make construction inherently faster and cheaper.
The other side of the equation is to clear away the artificial legal barriers. This must be McCain's highest priority after the election.
Would it be quicker to build smaller ones ( but more of them ) than to build large ones that take longer to build ?
Japan: most volcanically active and earthquake-prone country in the world, and the only one to be attacked with nukes.
Yet Japan has a very aggressive nuclear power program. Why?
Cuz they’re not COMPLETELY NUTS.
I still think whale oil is a good solution.
Agreed, the capital markets have a way of settling the competition for capital. The good ideas get the funding. Nuclear power will lead to a lot of uses for electricity that are currently on hold because the infrastructure is not there.
Some of the things are water desalinization
Charge at home commute vehicles
electric heating, electric water heaters
electric rail transport for goods and people
There is enough capital out there to fund the development of anything that can provide these benefits. The only real reason to oppose nuclear power is that you are afraid we cannot handle the growth. Lots of environmentalists fall into this category. Others simply want a crisis and an energy crisis is better than the global warming psudo crisis.
Yes we should drill, the increased oil will become available far sooner than large quantities of cheap electric power. But starting both now makes a lot of sense. Listen to Sarah.
PBR’s are naturally smaller, and do not have the unsightly cooling towers. Currently cuz of nutty enviros, licensing a build site requires TEN YEARS.
TEN YEARS.
Quickest way would be to ask US Indian Tribes to ask the Great Spirit if it’d be OK to locate on the nearest reservation, and then pay them for their trouble.
And then cut down the wait time to...a year, or something...
That’s just my opinion, though.
I seriously think that when car battery tech improves, the power infrastructure of even states that are not behind the 8-ball like California will suddenly find themselves in brown-outs, etc.
We need this tech N-O-W.
7. Pisses off Liberals and Tree-huggers.
That’s ALWAYS a bonus !!!
It was only after demonization of atomic power by Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda, and the takeover of the enviro groups by the Communist Watermelons that nuclear came to be seen as "anti-environmental".
Some of the older heads in these groups came to their senses, like Moore.
Because it never can get hot enough to melt down. And thus, containment is MUCH less expensive for equivalent safety. Reactor pebbles are road-safe: fuel rods are not. . .
Yes, it is!!
Let's get off of foreign oil and billions of US $$$$ sent to our enemies in the Middle East and Venezuela.
I’ve read really good stuff on what it would cost to get us up to speed.
If the Feds did a trillion dollar investment in our power grid infrastructure, meaning building the needed nuclear power plants and the wiring, combined with the refinery expansion and drilling, expanding our coal use and mining, and processing our shale, we could easily be free from foreign energy dependence and actually be an exporter of both oil and electricity. Not to mention all of our natural gas that is untapped.
In doing this we would also exponentially expand our manufacturing base and build up an incredibley strong skilled labor force. Just a win win situation that needs to be put forward NOW, and we all know a Democratic ticket will never touch any of that. $4 a gallon needs to be viewed as an opportunity to get our act together once and for all.
The French can build nuclear reactors in 5 years, why couldn’t we?
70% of our oil use is in transportation. We need to shift to electricity and use clean & environmental nuclear power as the source to supply this need. The sooner the better.
I saw the CEO of a midwest utility on CNBC being interviewed about his company’s decision to build a second unit at a site where they have one plant operating. There is a lot of existing infrastructure that will not have to be constructed. Even so, this plant will cost $9 billion when the cost of financing are included.
>>
Ameren has been working for more than a year with UniStar Nuclear of Annapolis, Md., to prepare the 8,000-page construction and operating license application delivered to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington.
The NRC staff will take 60 days to examine the application to determine whether it is complete and then begin a formal review that will take 30 to 42 months, agency spokesman Victor Dricks said. The commission conducted a public hearing earlier this month in Callaway County, and additional hearings will be planned.
<<
from:
A newspaper article on the announcement that an additional unit will be added to the existing Callaway (Missouri) Nuclear Plant said that the NRC will take between 30 and 42 months to review the company’s application which has taken more than a year to prepare. So, we are about 4 years into this project before the company can even commit to building it.
“A newspaper article on the announcement that an additional unit will be added to the existing Callaway (Missouri) Nuclear Plant said that the NRC will take between 30 and 42 months to review the company’s application which has taken more than a year to prepare. So, we are about 4 years into this project before the company can even commit to building it.”
THAT is the problem. 4 years to review and 5 years to actually build it.
In the article I cited, the statement was the plant could be operating in “as soon as” 10 years. And this is for a unit being added at a site where the initial burdens of application and litigation have already been overcome.
For years, the Goshute tribe of northern Utah has been lobbying to get permission to use 800 acres of their own land to store nuclear waste, but the flaming arrows of roving bands of lawyers have kept them from controlling their own destiny.
Nice chart. Shows the dramatic growth and market share of Transportation.
Nuclear power would drop the need (and price) of using oil because it is a substitute (#2) in stationary power production. And most importantly, a swing to nuclear power (besides its lower costs) would drop the price of natural gas, which could be used in Transportation. Low cost nuclear power would also allow the use of electrical Transportation (rail or cars).
It’s nuclear power or high priced natural gas (and oil).
Charlie Maxwell predicts $300 oil in Barron’s this week. Great interview. We only have a few years to extract our collective head from rectrum. Hopefully we choose wisely.
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.