Home /
Reply to Message
RE: Scientists: Nuclear power isn't viable without corporate welfare
The real problem with Nuclear Power is Politics. Back in the 1970's when I was in college, I majored in Nuclear Power for 3 semesters.
Right after the basic course in the physics of reactors, We had a class in Operations, where we looked at the cost data for an actual running reactor. I was with the group that analyzed the construction costs. That was when I decided to change my major. over half of the cost for building that reactor was legal fees.
No industry that pays out over half it's manufacturing costs in legal fees will ever be profitable. The same is true for why US manufacturing has been fleeing overseas since the mid 1970's.
That reality is still with us. Regulatory and legal costs are crippling to the Nuclear industry.
France has gone totally nuclear for the electric industry. China is going that way, so is India. Pakistan and Iran see Nuclear Power as the only viable post petroleum future.
Our choice is to get on board, or to sink in the quagmire of 'alternate' solutions of the week. Wind, Solar and Bio-fuels are not workable solutions. Each has associated ecological costs that are being swept under the rug.
The revolutions in the Middle East are happening against a backdrop of bio-fuel induced famine.
Solar and Wind power cannot produce the Gigawatts we need without major climactic impacts.
The materials for solar are already facing shortages. Think rare earth elements. There is also the impact of large "Heat Islands" created by the plants. If you think the impact of all the asphalt for a large city is an environmental impact, wait until you see the footprint for a 1000 MW Solar plant. With the required energy storage for cloudy days, and nights, that would only deliver about 250 MW. We'd need at least 400 of those babies to seriously consider replacing the existing nuclear plants.
Wind power directly kills birds, bats and insects. It also reduces the natural water cycle. I would not like to see the American Great Plains become the new Sahara. That balance is closer than you might think. Look at the Great Sand Dunes area of Nebraska. All of the short grass prairies are at risk. Put a few thousand wind farms in Texas and Kansas, and the reduced rainfall might just start expanding things. Add more wind farms along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and we could be in for a long dry spell.
Right now, it is being blamed on "Global Warming", but the parts of Northern Europe that have the most wind power have lower rainfall too. There are always impacts to energy production.
Any thoughtful evaluation of US power needs comes to the conclusion that it is time to rethink Nuclear. We should be trying to come up with new designs, with a closed fuel cycle. Plutonium isn't waste, it is fuel for another reactor downstream. Our great "Nuclear Waste Problem" is really just an abundance of fuel we aren't using.
We should be using it up, not stockpiling it. That's what the French do.
We should also be looking at Thorium, instead of Uranium. We have more Thorium, and it works just as well as Uranium.
Fusion is the long term solution. It's too bad that after 50 years of trying, we are just not there. Fusion has been 20 years away from commercial reactors since 1937. It is still just 20 years away.
Don't count on being saved by Fusion. It will be great if it happens, but...
Right after the basic course in the physics of reactors, We had a class in Operations, where we looked at the cost data for an actual running reactor. I was with the group that analyzed the construction costs. That was when I decided to change my major. over half of the cost for building that reactor was legal fees.
No industry that pays out over half it's manufacturing costs in legal fees will ever be profitable. The same is true for why US manufacturing has been fleeing overseas since the mid 1970's.
That reality is still with us. Regulatory and legal costs are crippling to the Nuclear industry.
France has gone totally nuclear for the electric industry. China is going that way, so is India. Pakistan and Iran see Nuclear Power as the only viable post petroleum future.
Our choice is to get on board, or to sink in the quagmire of 'alternate' solutions of the week. Wind, Solar and Bio-fuels are not workable solutions. Each has associated ecological costs that are being swept under the rug.
The revolutions in the Middle East are happening against a backdrop of bio-fuel induced famine.
Solar and Wind power cannot produce the Gigawatts we need without major climactic impacts.
The materials for solar are already facing shortages. Think rare earth elements. There is also the impact of large "Heat Islands" created by the plants. If you think the impact of all the asphalt for a large city is an environmental impact, wait until you see the footprint for a 1000 MW Solar plant. With the required energy storage for cloudy days, and nights, that would only deliver about 250 MW. We'd need at least 400 of those babies to seriously consider replacing the existing nuclear plants.
Wind power directly kills birds, bats and insects. It also reduces the natural water cycle. I would not like to see the American Great Plains become the new Sahara. That balance is closer than you might think. Look at the Great Sand Dunes area of Nebraska. All of the short grass prairies are at risk. Put a few thousand wind farms in Texas and Kansas, and the reduced rainfall might just start expanding things. Add more wind farms along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and we could be in for a long dry spell.
Right now, it is being blamed on "Global Warming", but the parts of Northern Europe that have the most wind power have lower rainfall too. There are always impacts to energy production.
Any thoughtful evaluation of US power needs comes to the conclusion that it is time to rethink Nuclear. We should be trying to come up with new designs, with a closed fuel cycle. Plutonium isn't waste, it is fuel for another reactor downstream. Our great "Nuclear Waste Problem" is really just an abundance of fuel we aren't using.
We should be using it up, not stockpiling it. That's what the French do.
We should also be looking at Thorium, instead of Uranium. We have more Thorium, and it works just as well as Uranium.
Fusion is the long term solution. It's too bad that after 50 years of trying, we are just not there. Fusion has been 20 years away from commercial reactors since 1937. It is still just 20 years away.
Don't count on being saved by Fusion. It will be great if it happens, but...
Posted by YetAnotherBob
24th Feb 2011