Home / Blogs / Energy / Intelligent Energy
Follow this blog:
RSS

Japan’s partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.

By | March 14, 2011, 4:00 AM PDT

Many of us watched anxiously as Fukushima Daiichi facility’s nuclear emergency unraveled over the weekend. The situation has added to the intense stress and heartbreak Japan has been experiencing since Friday’s 8.9-magnitude earthquake and the subsequent tsunami.

The Fukushima story is still playing out. As of last night, the latest reports assumed partial meltdowns have occurred in the plant’s reactors No. 1 and No. 3, where another explosion has taken place. Whatever the ultimate outcome in Japan, the world’s nuclear industry will be looking inward on how to handle older facilities, plan for new ones, and address renewed public focus on safety measures and what-if scenarios.

Already in the works are passive water cooling systems, which designs for the next generation of nuclear plants often include. Such systems don’t rely on a power source (such as the emergency diesel generators that failed on Friday) to keep water flowing over the hot fuel rods. Instead, the systems use the natural flow of heat via convection and gravity to prevent core meltdowns, as shown with this Westinghouse AP1000 design. Older plants in the U.S. don’t have them. Without upgrades to the newer systems, nuclear plants seeking licenses to operate past* their original shut-down dates, such as Vermont Yankee, would be depending on the technologies of yesterday.

Another post today discusses using thorium to help safeguard facilities from meltdowns. And recently, coming out of France: undersea nuclear reactors. According to DCNS, its developers, the Flexblue reactor would conceptually be tsunami and earthquake proof. I think last week’s events would call that claim into question.

New technology aside, how people feel is vital.

Public opinion holds significant sway on whether the next crop of plants come to fruition, especially in the U.S. Americans are known for their uneasiness over nuclear power. Major concerns include storing its radioactive waste, about keeping plutonium out of the wrong hands, and repeats of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl-type disasters. Still, in regard to energy independence and greenhouse gases, the benefits of nuclear fission have slowly softened Americans’ overall attitudes toward a possible nuclear renaissance. Obviously, nuclear power’s potential dangers are currently undergoing their own renaissance in many people’s thoughts.

This Wednesday, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee will meet to discuss President Obama’s budget proposal of $36 billion in loan guarantees for 20 new nuclear plants. Rep. Markey, the New York Times reports, suggests a moratorium on building facilities in seismically active areas. I think filing that in the duh category would at least ease some minds.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Image: Flickr/cncphotos

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melissa Mahony

About Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2011.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Contributing Editor

Melissa Mahony has written for Scientific American Mind, Audubon Magazine, Plenty Magazine and LiveScience. Formerly, she was an editor at Wildlife Conservation magazine. She holds degrees from Boston College and New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Melissa does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers. She currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as an editor. Should Melissa cover a topic in which the WCS is involved, she will disclose this fact in her writing.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
74
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
THORIUM!!!
Thorium reactors don't produce as much waste and they're MUCH
safer to operate and control even in emergencies. The only reason
Thorium reactors didn't take off 50 years ago is that they DON'T
produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Posted by jackbp73
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Seems like no one is looking at or discussing the Canadian's systems, loosely called Heavy water, which are more expensive, but a lot safer and more efficient all the way around, Seems most hung up on the souped up submarine engines for power.Question still remains would you prefer to live near a nuke plant of a coal plant?
Posted by hmmmmm!
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
How about taking this position: No more Nukes-too dangerous!
Oh no, don't consider that! Please!

That's right. The solution to the inherent danger of catastrophe with nuclear power can be solved with more technological fixes. We just need upgrades, and please even more nuclear power plants everywhere.

Oh, sure, there's a possibility ANY nuclear power plant can explode and release massive amounts of radiation - but nonetheless trust those wonderful scientists, they'll ensure that will NEVER happen.

How can you possibly forward that argument right now when just a day before the first power plant exploded there were assurances that the plant would NEVER melt down and release radiation - now 200,000 people have been evacuated - but hey, no problem nuclear power is wonderful.

To say nothing of the problems of storing and transporting dangerous radioactive waste and fuel to run these things.

Please move right next door to one of your safe nuclear power plants and raise your children there and we may begin to believe that you actually think it is safe. Don't worry about daily small releases of radioactive steam typical of many plants - they are perfectly safe.

Until then, please face reality and call for the abolition of all nuclear power in favor of alternatives.

Thank you,
Dorian
Posted by dbreuer
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
The overblown hype of the anti-nuke crowd many years ago halted the development of improved reactors. Regardless of the outcome of the current problem, it will re-ignite the hype and hysteria.

I predict there will be no serious release of radioactive material in Japan.

We can criticize the design. It didn't successfully withstand a 20 ft (or maybe 30 ft?) tsunami wall of water. If it were designed for 30 ft, what if a 100 ft tsunami occurred? Our predictions of 100 year, 200 year, 1000 year maximum events are not very good---not for earthquakes, floods, snowstorms, hurricanes, etc.

YES YES Improve the design for future plants. But don't try to base the design on hysteria!
Posted by pauc1
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
"Friday?s 9.8-magnitude earthquake"
Typo here. Should be 8.9.
Posted by slahr
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Jackbp73 you are right on the money about thorium. Reference Wired magazine Jan. 2010 issue on "The New Nuke"...it's a must read. The lead in says, "Uranium is so last century. Get ready for Thorium, the supersafe, green and clean, massively abundant fuel of the future."
Posted by RiverRancher
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Yes, no new facilities in seismic zones would be a real "duh." But then no new facilities at all and the phasing out of existing reactors would, on a sane planet, be the way forward.

Dorian hits it pretty close to the head above. We have a superabundance of alternatives, despite what the nuclear power industry, not to mention our brothers and sisters in the coal and oil industries would have you think. We simply can no longer live with the burden of waste, cost, and danger from nuclear power.

Angela Merkel has backed off the extension for Germany's plants. The bankers have long since spoken on the value of nuclear for them: none. It's past time to put an end to this.

(Much more from me here: http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/nuclear-power/)
Posted by Bill Hewitt
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
I do live near a nuclear power plant and fully endorse the third reactor currently in the permitting process there. Those against nuclear power are a small - but disproportionately vocal - hysterical, luddite minority. There is no alternative energy source that is safer, cleaner or more sustainable than nuclear power. Solar energy causes far more pollution per watt produced (during the manufacturing process) than does nuclear energy production. Water and wind power are limited in availability and cost-prohibitive for major expansion. We are rapidly reaching the limits of fossil fuel production, and few will argue that these fuels are good for our health or environment. Unless a completely new source of energy is discovered within the next few decades, nuclear power is our only real option.
Posted by decryobliviots
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Since there has not been a meltdown, partial or otherwise, one has to question the professionalism of your headline. Please base your future articles on fact, not the evening news or neoluddite hysteria.

For the record: I live near a set of nuclear plants and it does not bother me at all. I get more radiation our in my yard. I get lots of exposure when I fly to or through Denver.
Posted by liberryair
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
"Without upgrades to the newer systems, nuclear plants seeking licenses to operate passed their original shut-down dates, such as Vermont Yankee, would be depending on the technologies of yesterday."
Please change "passed" to "past" so this sentence will make sense.

Non-nitpicking comment on article as a whole: A few hundred people will receive extra radiation from this incredible disaster, which MAY shorten their lives by 10 years or so on the average. In contrast, the earthquake/tsunami combo has immediately killed 10,000 or more. From these numbers, it seems clear that the nuclear problem should be a minor issue, when seen in context. But people don't respond logically.
Many people are saying, "we must never again allow anyone to build nuclear plants on a coastline." But nobody is saying, "we must never again allow anyone to build large housing developments on a coastline." We're halting nuclear plant construction, and rebuilding New Orleans below sea level. WHAAAT?
Posted by dmm99
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
@decryobliv,

The problem with nuclear power is that a single catastrophic event can kill thousands, and the nuclear power industry has a history of being caught lying about the safety of plants. Remember Vermont Yankee - plant officials said there was no way they could ever have a leak because they had no underground pipes. Then groundwater contamination was discovered and lo, it was coming from an underground pipe!

I too live (fairly) near a nuclear power plant that has a history of safety lapses, poor security and environmental contamination. I don't consider myself particularly hysterical but I do think that it is incumbent on the nuclear industry to prove itself safe.

I'm intrigued by thorium. I assume it won't help much with groundwater leakage (though I know little about the technology), and the spent fuel still needs to be stored for a loong time ("only" 500 years vs thousands), but the disaster movie spectacle of a core meltdown sounds a lot less likely.

Still waiting for Mr. Fusion. Great Scott!
Posted by scripter
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Windmills cause nuclear waste!
That's right: Windmills cause nuclear waste. Windmills require rare earths for their magnets. Refining rare earths from their ores leaves mountains of radioactive slag. No, I'm not making this up. Ironically, guess what most of the radioactive material is -- thorium!
If you don't believe me, do a search on "rare earth mining thorium."
Posted by dmm99
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
How about not building nuclear plants on the beach, or on a fault line...

Maybe we should build all our new nuke plants in Miami, Galveston, New Orleans, and San Francisco... sheesh.
Posted by bb_apptix
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
It is disapointing to see so many comments that seem to come from those who choose not inform themselves of the many technical and economic nuances of the issues they comment on. New plant designs are oders of magnitude safer than most current operating plants. The Russian disaster was the result of many factors including an extremely poor design combined with poor execution. Our current operation reactors are not perfect and they are much safer as evidenced by their combined historical safety record. The economics of wind, solar, MHD tide power and similar all won't be practical for many decades where as we can and should be building new nuclear plants now (Thorium is an excellent option for the reasons stated in other posts) to supply a necessary smart grid. We need economical, clean power now and the waste issue can be handled except in the minds of NIMBIES. New reactor designs make nuclear power one of our best options for clean and green power generation. Those of you who tremble at the thought of radiation might do a little research on how much radiation escapes from the stacks of a typical coal fired plant each day.
Posted by Milldew
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
freeloaderfred
Those Japanese reactors are OLD reactors with OLD technology and OLD safety outlook.
There are newer designs that are infinitely more stable and controllable.
What Japan (and the industy) needs right now, are Spin Doctors!
Someone needs to get the truth out about reactors, not what fearmongers and the press are saying (neither of which are knowledgeable about the industry).
It costs Billions of dollars to build reactors. That gets money people involved - people like politicians, lobbyists, the press, investors and other lenders - that know nothing about the industry or its safety.concerns.
The industry needs to TEACH the public, the press, and others about today's nuclear power generation so that they will know what is happening. People tend to fear the unknown, so that is where the teaching comes in.
Posted by FreeloaderFred
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
The title should be"the future of nuclear crap" in the U.S.
Posted by blackjack861@...
14th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
There are meltdowns and there are meltdowns
The radioactive types of meltdowns in Japan are going to be unfolding for months to come, and I can already see the spin doctors creating distance between the Fukishima plants and the new generation nukes that are in the planning stages. I can also see that the ones who have submitted building permits (NOT the same as the next generation nukes) are throwing all kinds of information about how different they are from the Fukishima nukes.

But here are the facts: neither the San Onofre nuke located between San Diego and LA nor the Diablo Canyon nuke located between LA and San Francisco would have fared any better under a similar earthquake off the west coast. Neither nuke is designed to survive that big of an earthquake and tsunamis were simply not properly accounted for in the planning of these nukes. If the outcome for either of these nukes was the same as the Fukushima plants, not only would the major metropolitan areas be affected, but the prevailing westerly winds would spew radiation across the US. As you can see from what is happening in Japan, such a disaster not only would take out a huge chunk of the electrical supply for the area; it would also cost untold billions of dollars of direct damage and contamination and easily surpass the limits of the Price Anderson Act, meaning that the taxpayer will be picking up the majority of the tab. In the case of Diablo Canyon, if the radiation contaminated the central valley in California, much of the nation's food supply would be jeopardized, perhaps for years. All of this could occur whether or not a single new nuke is built, and it's clear from interviews I heard on NPR that the risk management calculations on nukes vastly underestimated the impact of a tsunami, so those calculations are being looked at all over again, which brings us to the second kind of meltdown:

Financial. Do you have any idea what reassurances that folks are going to need to build the nukes currently applying for licenses? And what that's going to do to the cost of these nukes? And what will happen to the Texas nukes in the works when folks notice that one of the main partners, TEPCO, is Tokyo Electric Power, owners of the Fukishima plants? I don't think there are many utilities in this country who are going to be able to justify the cost per kwh of nuclear power once all of these recalculations and reassurances and inevitable delays start to add up.

Nuclear is back onto the backburner again, and it might not ever get turned on for a long, long time.
Posted by klassman6
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Spent fuel pools now a concern
As reported in the NY Times there is a new concern in that the spent fuel of these reactors is stored in pool on the top level of the reactor buildings. The cooling systems for the spent fuel pools have also broken down and the explosions have blown the roofs off the spent fuel pools which are apparently starting to heat up. If enough water in the spent fuel pools boils away and the fuel rods catch on fire the high heat of the fire will spew radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Here's hoping the Japanese get on top of that situation.

Many people here blame the anti-nuke environmentalists for the lack of new nuclear power plants but I think the financial realities of building new plants is just as big an impediment. You can't get loans to build a nuclear power plant without government loan guarantees. No private insurer is willing to insure a nuclear plant for any price so it falls to to government to provide that insurance. That means if an incident like was is happening in Japan were to happen in the US it the US taxpayers who are on the hook for it. Is it worth the cost?
Posted by riverat1
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Seems to me the situation in Japan is working out well. The
power plants are performing beyond the specification Japan
provided GE's engineers. It is also my understanding it is not the
earthquake but the tsunami that caused the damage. Something
not likely here in the USA.

That being said, I am not a fan if nuclear power as it is too costly
to produce. I'll take coal and natural gas any day.
Posted by tmcclure
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
The issue is much, much bigger than the discussion here. Boiling water at 2000 degrees to make steam has never made sense thermodynamically, so the physics is wrong, very wrong.

But that's a much smaller issue than what we see evolving in Japan right this minute. There is no room in the discussion for any error, none. Any risk is completely unacceptable. There are no risk free human technologies, none. Because we are human, there will be error. Nuclear power admits no error.

Price-Anderson is still on the books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Here's the relevant part:

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power ? this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate.

Let's hear it from all the Libertarians out there: what does it mean to have the public on the hook? Why won't the industry stand on its own?

In 50+ years, these questions have never been answered and they won't be.
Posted by NCimon
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Re: THORIUM!!!
We need more energy not less. The world's energy needs won't move backwards. Thorium reactors would provide a safer alternative to the current standard. Money on energy infrastructure has to and should be spent. Perhaps more on infrastructure and less on defense.
Posted by keithsl@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
PEBBLE BED - Bottom line - Nuclear power's huge potential is limited by insufficient innovation investment. I studied to be a nuclear engineer - entering UC Berkeley in 1972 - the year of our last Moon shot and Nuclear power plant.

Much better designs are available than the 40 year old systems we currently depend on. How we update and insert new technology into the mix is hamstrung by technical gaps in the regulatory process that compromise business models even as it purports to protect the populace by focusing on "proven" designs.

Ironic that we are comfortable with coal, cars and cigarettes - any one of which kill more in a day than the Nuclear Meltdown in Japan will be responsible for in a year. We need a national discussion on the relative risks of alternatives and how best to manage future energy investments.
Posted by gigabob@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Compare the EPA's air pollution stats for Sacramento and Placer counties versus Marion County in Indianapolis. Factor in the healthy average life expectancy and the incidence of COPD, and I'll take the remote possibility that a literally earth shattering cataclysm may turn where I live into a hot zone over the virtual guarantee that the polluted stench produced by burning coal and oil will shave years or decades off of my life. Yay Nuclear!
Posted by tkejlboom
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Old/new, evolution. Despite their age, the reactors held up well over the years even up to several days before the big one when there was a magnitude 7 quake. And it's my understanding that it was the tsunamis that really created the problem; masses of cold water washing through the plants. Regardless, as we see from the posts here, we need to keep evolving. The strides made in nuclear power are tremendous and we need to find ways to get them online quickly. Nuclear presents all types of variables from large to small. It's very flexible.
Posted by rjbrunojr@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Dangers in free Energy.
If you have not noticed any thing that is free has costs and penalty's that come with the word Free. Atomic Energy is a free source of Energy, it is the process of converting it from the form mother nature provides it in into the electrical form you use called AC electricity. Then if it is free why do I have to pay for it, nature is always free, it is the conversion process you pay for.

Most of the protests come from the dangers that mother nature has placed on it's use. The ones that desired to use this process seem to forget these danger protesters were stressing.

I am not anti nuke, I'm more pro nuke but do remember their is dangers all because of it being free energy from Nature. And Japan today is learning in person of those dangers. It would be nice if these dangers could be removed but just remember the concept of free any thing can offer dangers that come with free any thing.

Still can't wait for Fusion insted of Fission, but the biggest road to that was killed on 1/15/2009 as President O'buma killed the NASA Constellation project. All so he can say he sent us to Mars, and Bush's to the Moon first would have gotten us to Mars but with experience in Space via our next door neighbor the Moon and Mars is like the next city, and our space travel today is like foot transportation at this point in time.

P.s. I may be biased due to the fact I was born one year to the day that JFK sent us to the moon, and the fact that my brother was a Lockheed Martian Engineer to return us to the Moon by 2019 . Mars at the current plans is 2035 and the moon then mars was 2033 according to my brother.
Posted by DHOLYER@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Don't try to compare Chernobyl and Three Mile Island... they are
nowhere near the same magnitude of problem and the reactor
designs and safeguards are totally different. The problems in Japan
at this time are well overblown by media frenzy and *that* in itself
froths up fear in the general public mind. Shame on these media
hypes for the "chicken little" games they play.
Posted by hogward@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
What do you want instead?
The only explanation I can think of for the distribution of comments here is that 50% of the people are below average.
So you don't like nuclear? What do you do instead?
So you don't like coal? What do you do instead?

There aren't enough caves for all of us to live in.

Our nuclear technology is behind partly because we have not built any new plants (with evolving technology) for decades. With similar restrictions on cars, we could all be driving Model Ts.
Posted by pauc1
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
It shows a profound lack of imagination to believe we can't have a good lifestyle without fossil fuels or nuclear power. It may be a somewhat different lifestyle than we have now but so what? The world is changing and you either change with it or you get left behind.
Posted by riverat1
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Most of the posters here make a lot of sense. Of course, there is the hippie, pot-smoking, green minority decrying the dangers of nuclear power. In short, there is risk associated with anything worthwhile. The safety record of nuclear power production, Chernobyl included, is hundreds of times better than that of fossil fuel power production. Has anyone in the west died from a nuclear power plant accident, ever? The cost of nuclear power is greater because it includes handling of waste products. Thermal power stations just pump it into the air and dump the ash. Come on, artists, philosophers and others out of touch with reality, put out your crack pipes and look at the numbers.
Posted by itadmin@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
@reverat1
Exactly! We DON'T need to spend that much energy from either nuclear or fossil fuels.
We don't need to get concentrated to big cities either.

The goal should be to live in autonomous houses / buildings.
We can get ALL required THERMAL energy, from a combination of geothermics and the sunlight and then some. We can get ALL the remaining ELECTRIC energy, again from the sun (and/or wind), optionally with some help from green power plants.

Today is oxymoron to buy an expensive, high performance car and then get stuck in the traffic for hours.
So we should exercise more and eat less - instead of becoming fat, unhealthy and feel uncomfortable. Let's use the car less and the bicycle more -and of course our feet.

We should also be less greedy consumers. We just need a different, human-friendly lifestyle. That should be our and society's goals. NOT more, "better" nuclear reactors!



About the nuclear dilemma:

The problem with nuclear fission reactors compared to anything else, is that when something goes wrong, we ALL don't have a choice. Not just those who live nearby.

This video is for all of you nuclear lovers:

"Nuclear family"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohx3fA5IBdY
Posted by Administrator.
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
mildew sez..
"New plant designs are oders of magnitude safer than most current operating plants."

yes, they stink increasingly with time. could not have posited a more accurate scenario myself.

=D
Posted by catseverywhere@...
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Nice to See my post deleted
Stated my toughs on here last night, now its gone? WHY?

I mentioned the use of space based broadcast power. Guess creating the most toxic waste known to man is just fine with everyone.................
Posted by winddrift03
15th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Each of these posters is perched in his own tree and cawing into
the wind. They all overlook the most obvious solution of all, which
is to just stop using so damned much energy. Our profligate use
has spiraled out of control. Like with the financial mess, we should
just all learn to live within our existing means. If we all set out to
conserve, we won't have to debate what type of new plants to
build...
Posted by erapka@...
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
where's your wallet?
itadmin #29,

You admonish folks to look at the numbers, and yet it is you who have forgotten to look at the current financial numbers for building a new nuke. The new Georgia plants who received loan guarantees from the feds so they could be the first two to move ahead are slated to cost 8 billion dollars per plant. Now what do you think is going to happen to those numbers after the Fukushima debacle? Same thing as as happened to every nuke ever built: huge delays and cost overruns. Let's be very conservative and say all of this will only increase the pricetag 50% to 12 billion per. Now who's going to buy this electricity, that already was going to be some of the highest cost per kwh anywhere? Would you invest in such a venture when you can go out and invest in energy efficiency technologies and already existing wind technologies that are available at a fraction of the cost?

Wind has already been putting up impressive numbers of installed capacity in recent years and this should turbocharge the process, and folks are going to increasingly turn to thermal solar and even experimental PV over nuclear after this. Too many folks are going to question the house of cards nature of the safety measures around nuclear for it to move ahead significantly now. Perhaps more money will go into next generation nuclear technology, but I'd say that this puts the nails in the coffin for current generation nuclear. The financial community is what stopped nuclear after 3 Mile Island, and the financial community is going to stop it again after Fukushima. Who is going to put their money into the nuclear reactors planned in Texas which is being planned by the same company that built the Fukushima plants? It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by klassman6
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Two things I don't hear considered
1) Conservation. How much could we not need more energy if we
conserved what we have? Why do cars have to be running at a
stop light? Why are we not using more LEDs for lighting?

2) Nuclear Waste. What do we do with waste from nuclear plants?
After all, it is still radioactive after quite a long time. Even thorium
has a half life that is much longer than any of us will be alive.
Posted by Roc Riz
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Need to change course.
The push to change the world over to non-hydrocarbon, non nuclear energy sources is a noble one, but the focus is out of whack with reality.

Large solar plants cost too much to build, too much to connect to the grid from the remote areas they must be built in and destroy too much land as environmentalists have pointed out in California.

As riverat1 has said on several threads, we need to start looking at each building providing a majority of it?s own power.

If every new home is built with a small 5kw solar array you are talking 5,000mw of power produced on a sunny day for every million homes built. For a comparison the Pilgrim 1 nuclear plant in Plymouth Massachusetts puts out 685mw.

If every home built since 2005 had this setup you would be talking a potential of well over 25,000 mega watts on a sunny day.

People keep talking about building a smart grid. Well a smart grid would be able to absorb and utilize all that power on a sunny day and dynamically power down coal, oil and gas planets as needed. Then it needs to ramp up output to meet power needs after dark. New conventional power plants could be smaller with regional needs in mind to work better with the local solar grid.

Until the power storage issues are resolved to allow solar energy to be stored and used overnight, this type of setup would likely reduce the nations use of coal, oil and gas by at least 10 percent per day after a few years of normal new home construction. There is potential for very high savings to be had in areas like the American Southwest.

And lets face it. People can do with out the granite counter tops that cost as much as a 5kw solar kit.
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
passive water cooling systems work, during an electric power outage at home the gas worked and the heater heated the water in the hot water baseboard heating system and physics did the rest - no pumps required!
Posted by SED39
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Just a couple responses for your entertainment:

decryobliv said "There is no alternative energy source that is safer, cleaner or more sustainable than nuclear power. Solar energy causes far more pollution per watt produced (during the manufacturing process) than does nuclear energy production."

I beg to differ. As a solar professional I can assure you that the environmental impact of manufacturing PV is far outweighed by the clean generation over the 25 year life cycle of a PV module. I'll give nuclear "sustainable" - nuclear waste hangs around for a long, long time.


Milldew said "New plant designs are o(r)ders of magnitude safer than most current operating plants. The Russian disaster was the result of many factors including an extremely poor design combined with poor execution."

The keyword is "safer" but still not safe. Sorry, safer is not good enough for me.

FreeloaderFred said "There are newer designs that are infinitely more stable and controllable."

"More" stable and controllable is not good enough either Fred.

dmm99 said "That's right: Windmills cause nuclear waste."

They're not windmills, they are wind turbines and they don't mill anything. The byproducts of manufacturing are harvested providing an additional revenue source for manufacturers.

itadmin@
"Of course, there is the hippie, pot-smoking, green minority decrying the dangers of nuclear power."

I have to take offense at this one. I am neither a hippie nor a pot smoker. I do however have a degree in Renewable Energy and I'm a card-carrying member of your "green minority".

Here's a novel thought. Instead of trying to come up with innovative ways of generating more and more power, why don't we just use less? The national average for electricity consumption is around 10 kWh per day per person in a typical household. I get by easily on 3 kWh per day with no appreciable sacrifice in lifestyle. Efficiency has a much greater and faster payback than any energy system including Renewable Energy. The cheapest and cleanest power is that which you don't have to generate in the first place.
Posted by SolarGuy!
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Nicely said SolarGuy!. Too many people don't have the imagination to see out of the rut they're currently in and are afraid of the change that lies ahead.
Posted by riverat1
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
There are a lot of comments here from people who love to be afraid.

They do not understand the real problem.

The choices are simple.

1. Kill 2/3's of everyone you know. That is the "natural solution". This includes all kinds of "Green Solutions".

2. Continue to rely on Coal and Oil, finally, buying nuclear plants from France for literally Trillions of Dollars (if they will still take Dollars then).

3. Build new energy capacity plants that do not have large impacts on the environment. This will exclude large wind, large solar, bio fuels, tidal and hydro power systems. It will include small wind, limited bio fuels and some others. it will also include a large commitment to new nuclear power. There is simply no other alternative for clean power.

Every thing else here is just fear mongering. The numbers tell the real story.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
16th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Some people here cannot see beyond their own nose.
Either they have the money as their God and do their best to serve him, or their own tiny life investment in nuclear industry in any way, which they consider the most important thing on earth and make it their own religion.

Try to see the big picture. To achieve this, you must make a step back, away from your own ego. You're just a "tick" on the clock of human history. You are NOT important unless you manage to serve the whole and its long-term purpose.
Posted by Administrator.
17th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Home power supply is definently one of the best ideas, regardless of type, and doesn't have to be a $20,000 investment... I know a lot of people aren't as mechanically incline as I am, but I built a solar concentrator from old waste sattellite dishes that will melt 8oz of aluminum filings to a pourable state in under 1 minute at the focal point on a sunny day. Cost: ~$50, mainly for the materials to frame the array and polish the metal on the dishes to a mirror finish. I also have used it experimentally to generate steam by using an old oxygen tank from a welding supply house as a boiler, focusing the dishes along the length of the tank... again, high pressure steam was easily achievable in a relatively short time. Cost: $25 more for tank support frame. Great, time to make some power... Found a Honda 5KwH generator that had a seized motor and scavenged out the generator head. It wouldn't quite put out 5Kw anymore, but a steady 3Kw was doable. These heads require some serious torque to spin, normally provided by at least a 5HP gas or diesel, so how does one generate that power with a small steam supply? Inertia. I coupled together 10 1/4" sheets of scrapped plate steel, CNC cut circularly to 4' in diameter, milled flat, and set 1/4" apart on an old solid axle shaft supported by 2 new axle bearings. It's 1285lbs of steel that you could easily spin by hand. A close fitting housing of more 1/4" plate contains it with 4 sets of 45 degree angled nozzles for the steam to get in around the outside of the plates. With an upgrade to the size of the boiler tank, a float valve and water connection, and good sun concentrated on the tank, it's all junk that's become a large Tesla turbine/flywheel capable of turning the generator head through a simple speed increasing gear set gathered from old auto transmissions. It can make ~2 KwH of 120VAC power for 5-6 hours a day... I haven't coupled it to the house supply because it's not "clean" waveform electricity, but it's good enough for shop tools.

THE MAIN POINT IS: If a garage tinkerer with some basic machine tools can make something like this, why hasn't it been developed to something more efficient and affordable for everyone?? This was all mainly JUNK people throw out! This design is inefficient and crudely made, BUT IT WORKS... There's no doubt in my mind a better way is out there, but no one seems to want to take personal responsibility for their own power generation and consumption... if you just coupled something this simple with a utility size thorium reactor backup for general night hour use, or large thermal banking systems for smaller home system use, and you've at least taken a large chunk out of a HUGE source of pollution.

Nukes are still the only way to provide small footprint large scale power for utility grade power in the short term... preferably newer thorium reactors... but I do believe solar will eventually be harnessed in such a way that we will be able to depend on it 100% of the time in the future....... or maybe they'll finally figure out fusion at ITER or the huge laser fusion center at Jefferson Labs.
Posted by fwb153
17th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Stupid Is as Stupid Does
What genius said it was o.k. to build nuke plants where tectonic plates meet? Does "Ring of Fire" sound familiar? As evidenced by the nuclear catastrophes at Chernobyl, Ukraine, and in Japan, it is likely that there are other foreign governments that are lax about nuclear safety. While the U.S. may be relatively safe (and that is now in question), the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster crossed international boundaries and contaminated a large swath of Europe! (...and the IAEA is a paper tiger.)
Posted by lschwartz@...
17th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
I heard on the radio today that the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on the California coast doesn't have an earthquake plan. Don't know if it's true but it's a scary thought.
Posted by riverat1
17th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
How many Americans are willing to trade in their big, fuel thirsty vehicles for small cars lighter on fuel? How many people are actually willing to use less energy themselves? Most of these are noble goals for other people, but not for oneself. I would be surprised if any real savings on energy use will be made in practice. People are too selfish.

As for technology, there is what is here now and what works as opposed to pipe dreams about harvesing moon beams and fairy dust. Nuclear is here now, and it works. 23,600 people are supposed to die per year in the USA because of coal burning power stations. These generate 130 million tons of arsenic, lead and mercury containing ash. Getting rid of the ash is already a problem. India already uses Thorium in a nuclear reactor. From what I've read about it, Thorium is the way to go.
Posted by itadmin@...
17th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
The way forward
I've read lots of arguments based on fear and ignorance against the use of nuclear power, and several reasonable arguments for its use. We clearly need to replace older nuclear plants with those that use newer, safer designs and cleaner fuel sources.

The one argument everyone keeps missing, though, is that we cannot rely on any single source of power. Until alternatives are massively available, efficiencies are improved, and polluting byproducts are diminished to a sustainable level, we need to use all the resources we have available to us.

That includes conservation and using less energy. But here, we are fighting cultural inertia. The pain of trying to educate people and convince them of the benefits of better home design, less consumer packaging, using more efficient products is worth the effort, but just barely. If one's own family and colleagues take such a large effort to "get it", reaching out to the public is counterproductive. All these things are interconnected and there is no "silver bullet" to fix the problem.

Does nuclear energy have its problems? Yes. But so does every other form of energy production. While safer and more cost-efficient methods evolve, we need them all.
Posted by Suncat2000
19th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
Suncat,
I'd have to agree that the current generation of nukes are over-expensive, and after Fukushima, pretty much doomed to be even more expensive, and very, very difficult for utilities to put together a finance package together to actually get one built. To me, this might be the ideal opportunity to scrap them as far as building any new ones using that outmoded model. New generation nukes? Personally, I'm skeptical, but if there are to be any at all, it seems that a different design is needed that will provide better failsafe safety designs, address the waste issue head on, and produce affordable electricity.

I agree with you that in the meantime, many other options should be pursued, and at the top, energy conservation and higher efficiency standards are top priority. These goals will make the adoption of any other energy producing technology even more attractive.
Posted by klassman6
19th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
The electric utility industry needs to change its planning approach. Instead of trying to defend and extend its historical investments, and operating methods, it needs to work much harder at scenario planning to identify and implement solutions that meet all needs much more practically. Forbes.com discusses how the industry would benefit by emulating the planning model at Google http://bit.ly/hailDR
Posted by adam@...
22nd Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Where will this technology be needed?
After thinking about this for the past weeks, I've come to the
conclusion that nuclear energy will be used far into our limited
futures. The reason for this is, something has to power the power
plants that will propel us through space. Therefore, designs need
to be built and test here on the ground and then implemented in
space. Personally I can't wait to get to the Main Asteroid Belt
between Jupiter and Mars where there's tons of ore waiting to be
mined, refined, and turned into many needed resources.

http://www.solstation.com/stars/asteroid.htm
Posted by ENetArch
29th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Japan's partial meltdowns and the future of nuclear power in the U.S.
The real question will not be the design of the plant, but whether Congress will allow the NRC to do its job and monitor both existing and new plants. Union of Concerned Scientists have raised serious questions about the ways in which the power lobby has been able to stifle the NRC. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134741870
Posted by jimc45
29th Mar 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive