How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
October 18, 2010 | Length: 00:01:50
At the GoingGreen Silicon Valley conference in San Francisco, Matthew Trevithick, a partner at venture capital firm Venrock, proposes what the U.S. should do if it is serious about using nuclear power as an energy source.
Related Videos
In
A Nuclear power push could finish the Industrial Era for good
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
This is a fool's bargain. It is not economical even without the waste problem, it is the most heavily subsidized energy source that ever existed.
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
This is a fools bargain, nukes are nor even economical without the waste problem, it is the most heavily subsidized industry in our culture. Do you really trust the corporate world to take the long view on this issue?
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
"Let's see....get promo materials out on nuclear energy at that greenwash conference so we keep that marketing contract with the nuclear corp. boys--check!
Send some money to ZDnet to broadcast a sound bite to spread the word even further--check!
My job for today is done. Call for reservations at the golf course--check!"
RE: How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy
not come without a comprehensive legislation at the federal
level. As of now, upfront costs are still too high. Also, it would
take a lot of education and outreach to restore nuclear's image
as a dangerous, NIMBY source of energy.
Learn more about the ongoing debate and key players here:
bit.ly/bGwbSy
Luca,
www.poweringanation.org
A Nuclear power push could finish the Industrial Era for good
The complete incompetence of the US government regarding energy has put us to the edge of collapse if it is not too late. A massive tax and spend on a low EROEI energy system will mean the end of the US for sure.
Transcript
Music
>> We understand that by 2030, we will need 50% more primary energy on this planet, thanks to a growing population, but also aspirationally a higher standard of living. We are really between a rock and a hard place and I think the obvious conclusion is we're looking for carbon-free energy; we need baseload energy and that really leaves us with a couple of options that have proven to scale. Nuclear is the dominant one. The second one is large hydro. But the reality is we kind of tapped out the large hydro sources so that now falls everything back on nuclear. We need to invest in nuclear. If we were serious about this, and we had the guts to take on a 10 or 20-year vision as a nation, we would create the United States Nuclear Power Agency. It would be an agency with the purpose built to facilitate civilian nuclear electricity. It would take the best elements from the Department of Energy and the NRC and maybe some inspiration from the FDA, and really drive toward accelerating the safe, reliable, economic option of nuclear power. It would create an orderly, finite and conclusive regulatory process. It would include a public outreach and education processing. Again, this is what the Food and Drug Administration does. It would also address some of the challenging elements of financing this technololgy because, again, I think to meet 50% more global energy need and a carbon-free baseload way, it's nuclear energy and the United States has an opportunity to lead here.
Music
==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====