Home / Blogs / Business / Smart Takes
Follow this blog:
RSS

Is the time now for nuclear power?

By | September 8, 2009, 8:38 AM PDT

The stars—public opinion, global warming concerns and safety—may be aligning for nuclear power to make a comeback.

Nuclear power is environmentally friendly—at least until you have to dispose of the waste—and powerful enough to fulfill most of our power needs. The problem? You can’t mention nuclear power without thinking Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. It probably doesn’t help that Homer Simpson’s town can glow from time to time.

The Wall Street Journal examined the issue Tuesday in a story that captured the nuclear conundrum well. The ledger looks like this:

Pro:

  • Nuclear power is clean and emits no carbon dioxide.
  • Popular opinion is coming around to nuclear power.
  • Next generation reactors are more efficient and cheap.
  • The systems that power nuclear plants are smart and feature automated safety features and better shutdown processes.

Con:

  • Nuclear plants still cost more than fossil fuel versions.
  • You still have to store the waste somewhere.
  • When there is a rare accident the ramifications can be large.
  • These plants are big terrorist targets (France has its reactors inside double containment buildings).
  • Not in my backyard (NIMBY) is prominent.

Nevertheless, Gallup has 59 percent of the public favoring the use of nuclear power.

In a blog post, Gallup notes:

Support for nuclear energy had been fairly steady in the mid-50% range since Gallup first asked about it in 1994, apart from a 46% reading in 2001. The percentage who say they strongly favor nuclear energy had also been fairly stable at around 20%, before increasing to 27% this year.

Gallup has always found consistent and large gender differences in Americans’ views of nuclear power, and the same applies this year — 71% of men favor the use of nuclear energy, compared with only 47% of women. Both groups show their highest level of support for nuclear power to date.

Where do you stand? On paper, I’m all for nuclear power. Logically, these plants make sense. Yet there’s a nagging feeling about them. But the real test is gauging how you feel if you’re in range of one of these plants.

More reading:

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

Larry Dignan

About Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is the editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan

Editor-in-Chief

Larry Dignan is editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet and ZDNet. He is also editorial director of TechRepublic. Previously, he was an editor at eWeek, Baseline and CNET News. He has written for WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, New York Times and Financial Planning. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Delaware. He is based in New York but resides in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan
Larry Dignan does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
36
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
You missed one big CON:
Takes a long time to build.
Posted by mheartwood
8th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Time for nuclear?

All the slogan mongering that accompanied the start of the nuclear age has proven to be mostly myth. And the biggst one has to do with it being clean energy with no CO2 emisions. Not so... The total traject from mining to dismantling of the reactor (and of course the storage for hundreds of years of the still hot fuel) will add up to a gigantic amount of electrical energy and will be responsible for a lot of CO2. Another myth has to do with the supposed safety of the next generation nuclear reactors. The testing of maybe a 100.000 different types of airplanes have made them as save as can be. Still now and then we do have dramatic accidents - much more so with our experiende with how many different reactor designs: 20 or 30? Moreover there is the human factor and as we have seen in Tsjernobyl, Windscale and Thee Mile Island we sure have an inherent weakness here.

And of course there is the terrorist aspect too. It's maybe not so much the reactor itself that represents the biggest danger but the distribution of all the energy from such a centralised and certainly remote source. Sabotage enough powerlines - and that is fairly easy to do - and that precious reactor has to shut down as well. Add to that the horrible but quite possible theft of enriched uranium or of the resulting plutonium and you really have a nightmare scenario. All kinds of specialists - whose future may well depend on the acceptance of a new nuclear age - may fight over figures and all kinds of virtual data, but these are simple but fundamental facts. A whole lot of misleading is on its way and it will increase, but the ultimate question still is: are you accepting to play Russian roulette with your life and that of your children?

Henk de Boer
Posted by Henk de Boer
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
It is an enigma as to why Americans have not been clamoring for
nuclear power plants, given the proven safety record. While start-up
costs are higher than coal fired plants, the long-term costs are
moderate and, according to what I have read, less than burning coal. I
I believe the plants are safe and I would not mind having one a few
miles from my home. Maybe they should be located where the
Minuteman missile sites were many years ago. They are the most
remote locations in the USA. If ranchers and farmers are concerned,
the power companies could pay each of them a few million dollars and
they could move and live comfortably.
Posted by larsenkp2@...
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Applying the three S's might help weigh the pros and cons a bit: Safety (as in technology), Secure (as in physical plant/geography), and Sustainable (I don't see how nuclear option can meet this. None of us can afford centuries of waiting for the glow to die down).
Posted by firsttimeuser
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
And besides, as we face the next 50 years what else can we rely on as a constant source for power. Oil, no. Natural gas, no. Wind, not enough, Wave, out here in western Iowa, I doubt it. I say build them now and build then big.
Posted by rdon0548@...
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
While the use of nuclear power would help with our energy needs, does anyone know what the estimated reserves of raw ores are and where these ores are located? Look at the problems with the "rare earth" ores and the restrictions that China are placing on them.
And considering how much nuclear material has been "misplaced" over the years, the possibility of a "suitcase bomb" is rather high. If they make one and get it on any kind of aircraft, particularly a jetliner, that act would make the Twin Towers pale in comparison.
Posted by JTF243@...
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
People seem to forget that Uranium is not a freely accessible, inexhaustible material. It is getting harder to find and ever more expensive to process. And so far its mining and processing is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. By all means go ahead and build your big glowing basilicas, but beyond 2070 you won't be able afford to fuel them.
It would be better instead to cover every roof of every building in the world with photovoltaics and vertical wind turbines, use them to pump rainwater up into high tanks for potential energy, insulate every building to reduce heating/cooling loads, and use low-energy tech inside so that we do not need to bribe Native Americans to look after the glowing residue for the next 100,000 years.
Posted by mjxguerra
9th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Next Generation plants overcome many objections
Building next generation plants based on the '4S' model developed in Japan, nuclear power can be safe, environmentally sound, and less expensive per watt generated than fossil fueled plants. Using breeder technology, these reactors can be permanently sealed and buried underground, beyond the reach of terrorists.

They will run at full power for 30 years before their output drops to below half of its initial capacity. No refueling costs, and no storing of the wastes once they run down - the wastes will remain contained in the plant permanently.
Posted by LarryPTL
10th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Nuclear plants take far less time to build in some jurisdictions, than in the US, due likely to differences in regulatory hurdles.

On the near time-horizon is a new generation of small-scale nuclear power plants. They may be rail transportable, could be sited below ground, and returned to the factory for refueling. They were conceived in the US, but what are the odds of them being built here?
Posted by AlterGeek
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
The NIMBY solution for Nuclear Power
The reason we build nuclear power plants in our back yards is because we are using them to generate electricity, which needs to be generated near where it uis used because of transmission losses.

However, this is limited thinking.

Instead, we could easily design nuclear power plants to generate hydrocarbons - natural gas, gasoline, deisel and jet fuel, fuel oil, etc. We could build the plants hundreds - or thousands - of miles from population centers, and tanker or pipe the hydrocarbons to population areas, and use them in conventional power plants, cars, truck, planes, and to heat our homes.

Unlike generating oil entirely from coal, it would probably be CHEAPER to synthesize hydrocarbons from coal using nuclear energy as the heat source. And for those who believe in the myth of CO2-generated global warming, you could use plant matter as the crbon source - or even CO2 from the air.

Nuclear energy is heat energy, it is not electricity. If we change our thinking about how to use it, we can solve the NIMBY problem.
Posted by Brad Jensen
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
Is it ever time for nuclear power?
Everyone forgets about the nuclear time bombs that already litter the earth's landscape at present, the old plants that must be decommissioned and cleaned up before they break up or explode and the nuclear waste at storage sites that will find its way into environment sooner or later. This planet is already doomed because of all the existing nuclear insanity. Why are people so keen on compounding the destruction?
Posted by yujin99
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
When was it ever time for nuclear power?
Everyone forgets about the nuclear time bombs that already litter the earth's landscape at present, the old plants that must be decommissioned and cleaned up before they break up or explode and the nuclear waste at storage sites that will find its way into the environment as lethal contaminants sooner or later. This planet is already doomed because of all the existing nuclear insanity. Why are people so keen on compounding the destruction?
Posted by yujin99
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
1. Cartels control the supply of fuel, keep at a very high price.
2. Steel becomes very brittle and week after 25 years of radiation, France has had numberous breaks in the pipeing this year.
3. In case of accidents or sabotage they can kill an immense number of people and make large areas unihabital for thousands of years.
4. There is NO way to decommission a radioative plant.
Posted by griff63
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Using breeder technology for small scale nuclear is just opening another security hazard for nuclear proliferation as breeder reactors create weapons grade fuel. Why do you think the US has decided not too process spent fuel rods?

Take a look at Korea and Iran and think to yourself about why we would want to get more uranium and power plants. Processing for fuel, processing for weapons--the atoms don't care. I just don't buy that we can make them tamper-proof or develop more efficient processing technologies that won't end up becoming weapons manufacturing tools for those who want to use it for that.

Heavy security needs will continue to make nuclear cost prohibitive, and if we go down this path, expect fascist states to develop for security reasons. Not my idea of a benevolent future.
Posted by klassman6
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
The thing is if your driving around in an electric car, Is that coal powered electricity? If so you should put a bumper sticker that says "COAL POWERED" on the back.
Posted by amiman23
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Designs for 3rd world nuclear generators are in production. They're the size of a shipping container, buried underground, powerful enough for small communities and last 47 years. No grid nessary! Would you want one for your community?
Posted by amiman23
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
yes
mheartwood, the only reason it takes so long to build a nuclear plant is because of
the political/court maneuvering of the nuclear-phobes. Actually building a plant up
to spec takes only a few months.*

Piotr Beckmann once pointed out that we were releasing far more radioactive
particulates from each coal-fired plant -- material that naturally occur in traces in
the ground around the world -- than the waste fuel from several nuclear plants was
producing.

But then, the modernity-phobes hate coal-fired electricity generation plants, too,
even though we've had excellent particulate filters and acid scrubbers installed
since at least the 1960s. They've made it so difficult that another utility in shallow
anthracite rich Montana recently gave up on another plant there.

* Similarly, it takes many years to get all the permits to build a sky-scraper these
days, while the Empire State building went up in little more than a year.
Posted by Professor8
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Yes, and then some. Interesting most of the "CONS" listed aren't valid. Reactors are very poor terrorist targets, being significantly hardened, well guarded, and actually capable of producing very insignificant impacts even if targeted successfully. It'd be far more productive to target a conventional fossil fuel, or even better yet, hydro-electric, facility! Experience clearly indicates that accidents in any reasonable nuclear power facility will be, at worst, very minor. Chernobyl can't really be included as no one, not even the least responsible socialist states, build such poorly designed and run 2nd generation plants anymore. It's most notable that nuclear power, while marginally more expensive than fossil fuel, is still over an order of magnitude cheaper, and almost infinitely less environmentally damaging, than 'alternative' sources such as solar.

It's a no-brainer. We should commit to rapid expansion of our nuclear generating base. It's the right thing to do for economic reasons. It's the right thing to do for political reasons. And it's the right thing to do for environmental reasons.

That we refuse to do so only demonstrates the power of 'The March of Folly'.

Posted by Adiff
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
"Nuclear power is environmentally friendly?at least until you have to dispose of the waste." Nonsense. Nuclear waste is insignificant as an environmental issue. Even from the perspective of 'public health & safety', it's at worst a minor and highly manageable issue. Visit the Barnwell site in SC. It's one of the most flourishing wildlife areas in the entire southeastern USA...and it's a 'nuclear waste site'. It isn't danger that keeps people out...it's fear, plain irrational fear. For over a decade we've determined to store nuclear waste in the least efficient, most dangerous manner possible (i.e. temporarily, on-site), and the impacts and damages have been so minor as to be completely insignificant. With a rational repository and transport system for high-level wastes, which would be glassified on-site prior to transport, the risks approach zero across every scale, even projecting thousands of years into future. The damage and the risks of nuclear waste are so minor relative to those of every other energy generation technology, that it's not inaccurate to call them non-existent, relative to every other alternative...including solar. This is simply another boogie-man where we've allowed, as a society, our primal fears, to conquer our reason.
Posted by Adiff
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Just look at the exclusions in any of your insurance policies.
It's the small print; then wake up to no cover.
Posted by kwickset@...
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
You know, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinformation about nuclear power that gets spread around by those who have a strong opinion but know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the technology. Take Henk De Boer for example:

"All the slogan mongering that accompanied the start of the nuclear age has proven to be mostly myth. And the biggst one has to do with it being clean energy with no CO2 emisions. Not so... The total traject from mining to dismantling of the reactor (and of course the storage for hundreds of years of the still hot fuel) will add up to a gigantic amount of electrical energy and will be responsible for a lot of CO2. Another myth has to do with the supposed safety of the next generation nuclear reactors. The testing of maybe a 100.000 different types of airplanes have made them as save as can be. Still now and then we do have dramatic accidents - much more so with our experiende with how many different reactor designs: 20 or 30? Moreover there is the human factor and as we have seen in Tsjernobyl, Windscale and Thee Mile Island we sure have an inherent weakness here.

And of course there is the terrorist aspect too. It's maybe not so much the reactor itself that represents the biggest danger but the distribution of all the energy from such a centralised and certainly remote source. Sabotage enough powerlines - and that is fairly easy to do - and that precious reactor has to shut down as well. Add to that the horrible but quite possible theft of enriched uranium or of the resulting plutonium and you really have a nightmare scenario. All kinds of specialists - whose future may well depend on the acceptance of a new nuclear age - may fight over figures and all kinds of virtual data, but these are simple but fundamental facts. A whole lot of misleading is on its way and it will increase, but the ultimate question still is: are you accepting to play Russian roulette with your life and that of your children?"

Given all of the rambling thinking and misspelled words in this post it's hard to know where to start so here's a couple of FACTS:

1. Far more energy is used in mining coal than in mining uranium. Oh, and when you burn all that coal in a conventional power plant you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Nuclear power plants add zero CO2 to the atmosphere from their operation.

2. A coal plant emits 50 times more radioactivity to the environment than a nuclear plant. How can this be true? When coal is burned the radon gas and other radionuclides contained in coal are released right up the smokestack. I'd much rather live 2 miles from a nuclear plant than a coal-fired power plant.

3. The current generation of reactors in the U.S. are 30 to 40 year old technology. Yes, they have been upgraded over the years but the next generation of inherently safe reactor designs will be cheaper to build and easier to maintain and operate. YES, a nuclear plant will ALWAYS be more expensive and take longer to build than a coal plant but the overall cost of operation for the power generated is lower for the nuclear plant.

4. You're not going to get terrorist proliferation of nuclear material from a nuclear power plant. Spent nuclear fuel is so radioactive that it must be kept below 25 feet of water in a spent fuel pool for years before it can be loaded into dry cask storage. You should be far more concerned about terrorists getting their hands on an existing nuclear weapon than on spent fuel from a power plant.


Posted by simul8guy
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
And yujin99, another FACT... nuclear power plants CANNOT explode like a nuclear bomb, it's physically impossible. And NO the Chernobyl accident was not a nuclear explosion.....
Posted by simul8guy
15th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
You idiots, it does not take an explosion for radiation to create problems.
This is a superficial at best coverage of the issue, it is very depressing that an important decision such as choosing between nuclear, solar, wind or whatever else is tackled superficially, most editorials and reports are propaganda trying to prove a point, a full analysis including exhaustive cost comparison is impossible to obtain for the public. The few number comparisons available seem to insist on comparing 1970s nuclear plant costs (lower than current ones), with 1970s solar plant costs (higher than current ones).
All I know is that soon $15000 of solar panels will power both my house and my car, while you will still be discussing pros and cons.
Posted by bluescreen_z
16th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Adiff,

Your offer is accepted, your backyard will be a storage point, if we dig deep enough we can all the spent fuel in there. If you say no you are an ....
Posted by bluescreen_z
16th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
mjxguerra,
don't waste your time, US folks have lost the ability for reasoning and critical thinking. Foxnews has been telling them that photovoltaics and wind turbines are liberal treehugger devices that will destroy the economy and take their jobs aways. They won't let subversive talk distract them. Drill baby drill, and build nuclear centrals now and build them big, or else you are either a socialist or a communist.
Posted by bluescreen_z
16th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
If you think nuclear is safe, try googling "uranium mine tailings" - they're an ongoing environmental disaster.
Posted by Greenknight_z
16th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
bluescreen_z

The only idiot here is you. Since sometimes the 'wind don't blow and the sun don't shine' wind and solar energy will never be useful for anything but supplementing baseload power (that's 24/7 power to those unfamiliar with the term) from a hydro, fossil fuel burning, or nuclear power plant. Give me a nuclear plant that provides power 24/7 while you hope your solar powered battery bank doesn't run out on a cloudy day before you want to watch your favorite TV show....
Posted by simul8guy
16th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
simul8guy says 'Since sometimes the 'wind don't blow and the sun don't shine' wind and solar energy will never be useful for anything but supplementing baseload power...'

Are you really this ignorant? We're talking about an energy-grid and not about some loose generators. bluescreen_z is right that a lot of 'US folks have lost the ability for reasoning and critical thinking'. I'm sorry, but your reactions are just exemplary in this...

Posted by Henk de Boer
17th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
simul8guy says 'Since sometimes the 'wind don't blow and the sun don't shine' wind and solar energy will never be useful for anything but supplementing baseload power...'

Are you really this ignorant? We're talking about an energy-grid and not about some loose generators. bluescreen_z is right that a lot of 'US folks have lost the ability for reasoning and critical thinking'. I'm sorry, but your reactions are just exemplary in this...

Well Henk in your case it's clear we're dealing with someone who can't elucidate a coherent thought so I wouldn't be calling anyone ignorant if I were you. The fact that wind and solar power generators are connected to a power grid of mostly conventional power plants that produce power 24/7 "rain or shine" is exactly my point. You couldn't have a power grid without baseload power of some sort for exactly the reason I stated. So if you want to power your home or business using solar or wind power disconnected from conventional power lines then I suggest you include a portable power generator in that mix for those days that the 'wind don't blow and the sun don't shine". Unless of course you like living a cold, dark house....
Posted by simul8guy
17th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Surely you cannot be serious:

Pro:

Nuclear power is clean and emits no carbon dioxide.

This is a myth...the mining/processing of uranium into fuel rods for reactors is the most CO2 intensive industrial process known to mankind...the running of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffussion plant (fuel fabricator) was powered by nine coal burning plants, and used enough energy to power all of Los Angeles County for 280,000 years. That is a LOT OF CO2.

Popular opinion is coming around to nuclear power.

Is it? Tell that to the Community being FORCE to host the nuclear industry's aging reactors for another 20 years because the NRC is rubber stamping their license renewal applications.

Next generation reactors are more efficient and cheap.

GIVE US A BREAK...first, the last ten reactors built have come in on average over 300 percent ABOVE BUDGET. Secondly, do your research and you will find that the industry wants ONE HUNDRED PERCENT LOAN GUARANTEES compliments of the US taxpayer. The lst time the nuclear industry was given loan guarantees, there was a 60 percent DEFAULT RATE.

The systems that power nuclear plants are smart and feature automated safety features and better shutdown processes.

These were the same FALSE PROMISES made before. Stop buying into the industry PROPAGANDA and do some real research.


Con:

Nuclear plants still cost more than fossil fuel versions.

They cost a LOT MORE when you factor in all the costs...IE, our taxes pay for fuel fabrication (see GNEP), and the Price Anderson Act leaves the industry free from financial responsiblity when there is an accident. A nuclear accident at Indian Point would cause more than 500 Billion in damages...do you really think the Federal Government will make us whole?

You still have to store the waste somewhere.

In the nuclear industry's 50 year history they have yet to dispose of ONE OUNCE of their waste streams in a SAFE MANNER.

When there is a rare accident the ramifications can be large.

Forget accidents...womens breast cancers rates around nuclear reactors are off the charts. A woman living within 25 miles of a reactor has a 25 percent increased risk of having a still born birth...in short, nuclear reactors are nuclear abortion machines.

These plants are big terrorist targets (France has its reactors inside double containment buildings).

The planes that took out the TWIN TOWERS on 9/11 flew right past Entergy's poorly defended Indian Point reactors.

Not in my backyard (NIMBY) is prominent.

I live within 3 miles of a nuclear reactor...no one should have to pay that price for electricity.
Posted by CosmicRabbit
22nd Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
In Minnesota, we like to joke that we have no problem storing toxic waste as long as we still have North Dakota.

In reality, it is time for ALL kinds of power generation. No one can really say today how long it would take to build a nuclear power plant in the US, since it has not been done in 30 years. All that said, if it is done, it should be done carefully to minimize the impact on the earth. Since every option has a down-side, it may be that certain kinds of plants should be built in more remote areas, while others are more benign.

I live two blocks from a bio-mass fired power plant. For us, it is a very good system; for those directly down wind, they do have occasional ash problems. This issue is being fixed at this time and should go away. If we had built new rather than converted a coal-fired plant, it would have been out of town. Location, location, location.

Civility and creativity would serve us well. If we could only harness the heat from all the fighting about this topic, we would not need a couple of the plants.
Posted by dmrdano
22nd Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
CosmicRabbit... what a great screen name for you... what a loon. Typical anti-nuke with lots of 'faux facts' and 'urban legend' B.S. information and you have the nerve to tell others to do their research. What a joke!

1. "The mining process for uranium is the most CO2 intensive industrial process known to mankind". What a croc of bull. Mining for uranium is no more CO2 intensive than mining for coal, silver, gold, or anything else that's dug out of the ground.

2. "the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant (fuel fabricator) was powered by nine coal burning plants, and used enough energy to power all of Los Angeles County for 280,000 years". Holy crap batman! Where did you get this whopper!!!???

3. "Secondly, do your research and you will find that the industry wants ONE HUNDRED PERCENT LOAN GUARANTEES compliments of the US taxpayer". Another fallacy bucko... The Federal government initiated the loan guarantee program (it wasn't 'asked for' by the utilities) as part of a stimulus package to encourage utilities to build nuclear capacity. Frankly, I wouldn't blame any utility for not wanting to be the first to build a next generation plant with the history of cost overruns for the previous generation of plants caused by anti-nuclear intervenors (like you) in the licensing process. BTW, the Federal loan guarantees you mention are for other forms of power generation too, not just nuclear.

4. "The lst time the nuclear industry was given loan guarantees, there was a 60 percent DEFAULT RATE". Another croc of crap. Utilities were NEVER given loan guarantees by the Federal government for ANY exiting nuclear power plant.

5. "A nuclear accident at Indian Point would cause more than 500 Billion in damages". Well obviously you must be an anti-nuke that lives near Indian Point. Another completely fabricated number... why didn't you just estimate 500 trillion dollars? That would be just as valid as this number that you pulled out of some dark bodily crevice..

6. "In the nuclear industry's 50 year history they have yet to dispose of ONE OUNCE of their waste streams in a SAFE MANNER." Another doozy! Please provide us with one example of where nuclear waste was 'disposed of' in an UNSAFE manner. The fact is that high level nuclear waste (i.e., spent nuclear fuel) is safely controlled in large spent fuel pools at each nuclear plant. BY LAW the Federal government was supposed to take custody of this high level waste by 1998 and place it in long term geological storage. Because the government was unprepared to do this utilities were forced to build dry fuel storage capability at each plant site. With the Obama administration's effective cancellation of the Yucca Mountain geological repository this spent fuel will have to be stored at the plants for many years to come.

7. "Forget accidents...womens breast cancers rates around nuclear reactors are off the charts. A woman living within 25 miles of a reactor has a 25 percent increased risk of having a still born birth...in short, nuclear reactors are nuclear abortion machines". This is the biggest pile of bull in this whole ridiculous rant. If any part of this statement were even remotely true every nuclear power plant in the country would have been shut down permanently decades ago.

So 'Cosmic BS artist' please spare us all the anti-nuclear drivel...


Posted by simul8guy
22nd Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
thousands of pebble bed reactors
centralized nuclear power is a bad idea. it's a china syndrome waiting
to happen. what the u.s. needs is community pebble bed reactors in
every neighborhood, in every factory. then it would approach
"too cheap to meter" and be safer than a sunday afternoon pleasure
drive.
Posted by aubreykohn
30th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Because nuclear power doesn't emit CO2 does not there mean it is "clean".

Privately build and insure a nuke plant and I'll go with the program.

My favorite on waste is hearing that France burns its nuclear waste. And so I guess it's, like, all gone.

Posted by sk.dunnage@...
30th Sep 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Yes, the time is now. Then when are you going to start. After all the the resource has been exhausted. Its like finding water in emergency. Why not prepared??
Posted by ang@...
8th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is the time now for nuclear power?
Yes, the time is now. Then when are you going to start. After all the resource has been exhausted. Its like finding water in emergency. Why not prepared??
Posted by ang@...
8th Oct 2009
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