I'm not an advocate of nuclear energy so please don't shoot the messenger. There's a real possibility that nuclear energy may still be in play for some time to come. Why? Because if the world population keeps growing, and if the oil producers keep having more and more trouble keeping up with demand, the pressure will grow to use nuclear energy as a stopgap until alternative energy becomes more developed (and if oil production worldwide begins to drops, the pressures will be even that much greater). Stopgaps have a nasty way of becoming semi-permanent solutions and those who want alternative energy sources to be the solution are going to have to do some hard work, and some coalition building, and they're going to have to do some serious number-crunching because some of the numbers are not all that good yet. And there will be powerful political forces advocating coal as well as nuclear.
The good news is that Europe seems to be committing itself more and more to alternative energy. China and India see the writing on the wall and they're moving towards other energy sources though China will keep burning coal and both nations are still committed to some amount of nuclear energy.
But this is likely to be a fifty-year political battle with high stakes for everyone. Of course, the bad news is that the United States has known for thirty years that we need to do something and we haven't actually done a whole lot except in the area of efficiency. There's a lot of infrastructure that still needs to get in place.
Again, I'm just the messenger, but visualize this situation. Suppose oil production begins to drop worldwide and the Gulf Coast gets hit with a couple of hurricanes like Katrina. Suddenly Chicago, the Midwest and the Northeast realize they're not going to have enough energy to stay warm in the winter though they might get LPG on the open market. They suddenly need a long-term solution. Here's what the nuclear people will say: "Cut the red tape and we can build you the needed plants in two years; if you wait for the alternative energy people to build up to the energy you need, it'll take ten to twenty years because that's been their record; a lot of people can die in that time." The coal industry will have similar arguments.
Obviously a national commitment to alternative energy would make an enormous difference but that hasn't happened yet. But it needs to.
By way of ending, let me throw one curve ball. Can someone offer an alternative energy solution to Iran so that their nuclear plants wouldn't be necessary if energy really is one of the issues involved?
Posted by Craig at March 7, 2006 02:26 AMElectricity demand is going up even as efficiency goes up; more people have more devices using mains electrical power.
It used to be at night people would sit and listen to a radio for a couple of hours, there'd be a few lights on here and there, then they'd go to bed. A rich family might have a refrigerator. Today a dishwasher is running alongside the washing machine, the hot tub is bubbling away, the kids are on their computer, the security lights are on outside, the widescreen TV is on in the livingroom etc. etc.
The US uses a terawatt of electricity today. That number isn't going to go down even with conservation. There isn't enough harvestable wind power out there on the CONUS to feed even half that demand; with luck, it can make up maybe ten percent. And what happens when the wind stops blowing? Offshore windfarms are untested technology but we have decades of experience of how costly it is to maintain small oil and gas rigs at sea, and the events of Katrina show just how fragile they are when bad weather hits.
If you shift from oil and gas to electrical heating for housing, the demand goes up even more. Electric vehicles and electric-traction public transport to save on vehicle fuels? Even more demand for power.
Conservation helps but at some point somewhere somebody has to generate power to feed the real demand. All the easy-to-get hydro power has been exploited. Windfarms are already in place on some of the best sites, chosen because they give the best return on investment. New farms are going to go into the second-string sites and return less power for the logistical costs of putting in roads, running longer power lines etc.
People may talk big about wind power and conservation etc. but a couple of winters of freezing in the dark as the overloaded generation systems fail to deliver and outages become more frequent and they'll be the at the head of the protest marches screaming "Where's our nukes?"
Posted by Robert Sneddon at March 7, 2006 02:58 AMNuclear energy will not go away for the simple reason that everyone needs some form of energy which can be turned on and off at will by the society needing the energy. Hydropower and windpower are great, but they tend to function at the whim of the weather. Without some form of storage system, these types of power just cannot be considered reliable. Once one adds in the cost of the storage systems, one finds that hydropower and windpower do become more expensive than the initial costs for more traditional (nuclear, coal, gas, etc) base power generating systems. What no one has bothered to do is to look at the long-term costs of the external costs which beleaguer nuclear and the other energy sources, like nuclear waste storage for nuclear and military expenditures for oil and gas.
The bottom line is that we will need a mix of the energy systems. Nuclear offers the advantage of reducing or capping greenhouse gas production. The question is which direction do we want to pursue. Personally, I'd be looking at tidal and space-based solar, but they will not be cheap.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at March 7, 2006 04:32 AMFor the readership's consideration.
First link is the slashdot 'discussion' - second is the Living on Earth program that the first references.
Nuclear power is safe, clean, and efficent - in fairytale land where energy companies aren't prone to graft, corruption, political bribery, and monopoly abuses.
= = =
If there's ever a topic that's guaranteed to bring out the nuts it's the nuclear energy question. (btw, I'm not picking on our previous two posters) D'you need to make sure that the fixes in the comments can withstand sveveral dozen hastily written screeds an hour, Mary? :)
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 7, 2006 04:36 AMWe need a power source that doesn't produce greenhouse gas. Nuclear energy is such a source. It is foolish to write it off. Wind Power if fine, but you need a 17 mph wind for it to work. It can not be used everywhere.
Coal, tar sands, etc, all cause enormous environmental damage.
Posted by Judy at March 7, 2006 05:49 AMIf we are to continue as a civilization, we must be able to provide reliable electrical power.
I think our heavy lifters (by far) in generating electricity right now are coal and natural gas.
Natural gas is in serious depletion mode in America (and North America). Importing liquified natural gas is something we haven't begun to do, and it's extremely expensive.
So, coal. I guess that's the real question. Want to burn coal at the per capita levels we did in 1890? That'll work out great for the planet, but it will be "cheap".
"Natural" sources of power are great, but to make them the heavy lifters may not be practical, and absolutely will be tremendously expensive. Think "the people" will be willing to pay for them? And fund our "essential" world domination military as well?
The problem is there are absolutely no good or obvious answers for our enormous future energy needs---and that's a policy situation which a failed democracy like ours has no hope of resolving.
Posted by euzoius at March 7, 2006 06:45 AMOver the past several months, my colleague David Bradish has been taking a hard look at Amory Lovins' work, and has found much of his research wanting. Take a look at the following links for David's posts:
Rocky Mountain's Real World Data Blunders
Revisiting RMI and Amory Lovins
It may be that coal could be a big part of the solution. It appearently is a fuel that America posesses large reserves of. The problems of course are pollution and CO2 emissions, but I believe that the technological fixes are known and available. More efficient coal burning generators along with scubbers can eliminate much of the pollution. And I've heard about ways to trap the CO2, and sequester it undergropund. Basically the power industry has gotten away with not doing anything about it by the failure of the government to impose regulations.
I recently heard the Governor or Wyoming(?) on Air America promoting this whole agenda of "clean coal". It sounded believable to me. Does anyone know any more about this?
Posted by Oaklander at March 7, 2006 07:10 AMNuclear energy is bringing a tiny piece of the sun to earth duplicating it's energy source, the burning of matter itself followed by it's regeneration. The direct approach is to use the energy of the sun directly. Wind is one of those ways as wind is caused by the uneven warming of the earth. Right now that is done by accident. Perhaps it could be planned. There are many ways to convert the rays of the sun into electrical energy. What is perplexing is the fact that no one has come up with a cheap way to do it.
Anglo American pushes for nuclear power may have a hidden agenda. Nuclear plants generate plutonium as a by product that can be used to make nuclear weapons. I thought we already had enough of them to destroy the earth several times over. Maybe they lose their strength in storage.
The sun has been a matter of speculation down through the ages. All ancient civilizations considered the sun to be God. Has that changed or are we being duped into thinking God is something else? http://www.hoax-buster.org has that story.
Posted by Bill at March 7, 2006 07:19 AMOaklander,
Brian Swietzer, the Democratic governor of Montana is a big advocate of building plants that are capable turning coal into gas while capturing and using the fumes that be the air pollution and pumpung them underground into oil fields to increase conventional oil production.
This project is so far theoretical and few if any private investors have taken the risk to invest their own money, but it would be a way to use our abundant coal reserves without making the greenhouse gas problem notably worse than it is. In the long run, hydrogen based fuels are the only sustainable answer both economically and enviromentally
but for the forseeable future this could be part of the answer.
Also, a couple of weeks ago, 60 minutes had a feature on Swietzer and this issue that is worth looking at.
I hate typekey, it messe up my link, here we go again:
If this link fails, the above cout and paste should do.
Posted by herbal tee at March 7, 2006 07:56 AMhttp://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/08/09/build/state/65-coal-deal.inc
This is rediculous.
Nuclear power is too expensive. I'm tired of subsidizing this welfare queen. If it's such a great industry, let the market decide its fate.
Posted by ann at March 7, 2006 08:25 AMHerbal Tee, Thanks for the link. That pretty much says it all, except whether or not it could actually work. Obviosly you are correct. Ultimately the solution should be a source or souces that don't relie on burning carbon.
Posted by Oaklander at March 7, 2006 08:31 AMNuclear is too expensive, wind/hydro too iffy, carbon-based too destructive. What are we gonna do?
Well, there's the big question of how to employ the world's growing population as industry and agriculture become more and more efficient and mechanized. How about giant generating farms in the Third World, much like the factories of the industrial age, where people report to work and ride stationary bikes all day at a reasonable pace with lots of breaks, generating electricity? A good, solid job with benefits, including a healthy body. The electricity would be relatively expensive but the social benefits of giving a hundred million impoverished Indians a paying job would be enormous.
You think I'm kidding...
Posted by Jim H. at March 7, 2006 08:41 AMDon't bother clicking on Bill's site. He is promoting an anti-God site. Take it elsewhere Bill.
Posted by Judith at March 7, 2006 08:45 AMhttp://www.hoax-buster.org has that story.
Bill, that's called blogwhoring.
Posted by ann at March 7, 2006 08:56 AMYou think I'm kidding...
No, I hope you're kidding. Yeah, sure let's go into third world countries and force them to create power for us. Oh, we'll pay them the equivalent of a fair wage in their country.
Here's a better idea: FAT Americans should be shipped off to third world countries and forced to ride those bicycles.
Posted by ann at March 7, 2006 09:01 AMMry, lthgh hv nt stdd th nclr nrgy mdl n dpth, knw ngh. sng smkng s cmprsn, whn rsrchrs, ll smkrs thmslvs, bgn t stdy th ffcts f th hbt pn smkrs drng th 50’s, thy stppd th frst stdy hlf wy thrgh th cdng prcss. Thy thn qt smkng; th rsrchrs hd ngh n smkng t flly rlz t ws kllr hbt. t hs tkn vr 50 yrs t vrcm th tbcc crp.‘s dcptn.
Th sm s tr fr nclr nrgy. Nclr ngns r kllrs. W knw ngh t ndrstnd tht t css r dth. ‘Dpltd rnm’ s cnnctd kllr. sspct tht whn w cnsdr th 70 ntns, r s, tht r ncldd wthn th nclr clb, cntng ll th cvln nd mltry nclr pplctns, w r t lt. Th rny fr m s tht s lbr n r nbrn nfntcd trcty, n th bck f my mnd m ntng th n-gng nclr psnng slwly strnglng nfntcd srvvrs.
D y s? ch btch f cncctd nclr fl s mmrtl, n sns. t’s mmrtlty s slwly kllng th wrld’s srvvrs jst s smkng slwly dstrys ts hst. Whl nclr nrgy my b ‘dd,’ t wll b rnd lt lngr thn th lst srvvng hmn.
Cool new technology watch.
Flying wind turbines. Power generating super kites are in development in Australia right now.
Posted by Growth Factor at March 7, 2006 09:19 AMOaklander,
What I believe is going to happen is that coal gassification is going to prove technically possible but uneconomical until the price of gas gets somewhere over 5 or 6 dollars a gallon.
Jim H.,
A collegue of mine from work suggested the same thing the other day. And I don't think he was kidding either!
Somehow I just can't see the treadmill as the answer. Maybe it's because I'm not into technologies that are over 1000 years old.
Nuclear energy production worldwide is expanding, as is demand for Uranium. (Iran, China, India) As fossil fuels continue to deplete and cost more to use, nuclear power will be a tempting alternative.
China is leading the way in new nuclear technology with small, pebble type reactors that encase the uranium in ceramic balls and can be operated with minimal supervision as the possibility of overheating and meltdown is not consistant with the design.
The length of time and the amount of fossil fuels used in construction of these plants may mean that economic collapse from the down side of Hubbert's Peak will prohibit them from saving the American lifestyle.
Posted by brisa at March 7, 2006 09:27 AMIf only the atomic nucleus did not harbour a source of energy. If only, if only…, but it does, and it is being used by several countries, and will be used in time by all, either to serve society, and/or to destroy it. There is no escaping it. The genie is out of the bottle. All of the uranium in the earth, and all of the plutonium that has already been created in existing reactors, must either be consumed, or actively safeguarded against abuse for eternity.
Posted by JIM3CH at March 7, 2006 09:52 AMWe should use alternative energy where we can. We do. And we should continue to research and develop alternative energy technology.
In the meantime, we need to build nukes, drill in ANWR, etc. We need the energy.
Posted by muckdog at March 7, 2006 10:03 AMIn the meantime, we need to build nukes, drill in ANWR, etc. We need the energy.
muck never gets tired of pushing the same old tired GOP taking points. We can't afford nukes - remember? By your own admission, muck: we're broke. If nukes are so great, they should be able to finance them on their own. And I'm sure you'll be the first one to volunteer your neighborhood as a site for a nuke and that you'll be happy to let them store the waste in your yard.
Give it up on ANWR, everyone knows that oil (if there is any that's usable) is slated to sell to Asia, enriching the oil companies on the taxpayers' dime (we pay for infrastructure.) And we all know that there's simply not enough oil in ANWR to justify the cost or destruction of the ecosystem.
Posted by ann at March 7, 2006 10:12 AMNIMBY!
That's the collective American response to nuclear power generation.
reference: Shoreham Nuclear Power Facility, Long Island, NY; Indian Point Nuclear Power Facility, Westchester, NY
Posted by snark at March 7, 2006 10:23 AMI think Jim H. has a point - maybe what we're missing is the efficency of the human body:
In motion, the human body also uses energy very efficiently. For example, a person running a marathon (26 miles or 42 km) burns only about 2,600 calories. In other words, you burn only about 100 calories per mile (about 62 calories per km) when you are running.You can see just how efficient the human body is if you compare your body to a car. A typical car in the United States gets between 15 and 30 miles per gallon of gasoline (6 to 12 km/L). A gallon of gas contains about 31,000 calories. That means that if a human being could drink gasoline instead of eating hamburgers to take in calories, a human being could run 26 miles on about one-twelfth of a gallon of gas (0.3 L). In other words, a human being gets more than 300 miles per gallon (120 km/L)! If you put a human being on a bicycle to increase the efficiency, a human being can get well over 1,000 miles per gallon (more than 500 km/L)!
Now just imagine those health clubs and fitness centers hooked up to small generators . .
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 7, 2006 10:27 AMThink: "Iceland". Brrrrr! Then think: "geothermal". Hmmmm!
www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/
(:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at March 7, 2006 12:23 PMits time to think outside the box relative to heating and cooling..
the idea of filling a gigantic void with warm air to provide room temperature for a single occupant dwelling is as wasteful as the predicament of a single occupant using a gigantic multi-passenger vehicle for personal transport.
an advanced thermal clothing layer can maintain an optimum body temp at a fraction of the cost to space heating. i've noted the emergence of textiles that do just this. the availablity of efficient electrically heated skiwear has moved beyond socks, to tops and bottoms. and this is market driven technology.
conductive heating via radiant floors is another example. my home has this. the air temp can be set significantly below what one is used to in forced air environments. the occupant simply conducts heat through the interface of their feet and bodies with the floor. wearing shoes is not recommended. this is far more comfortable than forced air, by the way. there is unanimous agreement on this. i would like to see projections on this.
in other words, our bodies can be perfectly happy and warm in an otherwise radically cool atmosphere. does this make sense?
Posted by dave at March 7, 2006 01:11 PMOne fairly "doable" solution at the present time is residential generation of energy, i.e. solar panels on (or incorporated into) roofs, practical housing design (does anybody remember the black solar water heaters that used to be everywhere in L.A?), massive, clean masonry stoves for heat in cooler times, superinsulation throughout the structure, etc, etc. As a contractor, I have been involved with all of these solutions and more at some level or another and foud them all to be very possible, inexpensive (relative to return and total house cost), and anywhere from "helpful" to "extremely beneficial." While these solutions don't entirely cut one's dependence on centralized energy (nuclear, coal, NG), It can make quite a dent in consumption in both the short and long term. In addition, these measures prolong the life of our current generation of power plants. Energy independence begins at (and with the) home. As far as transprotation... Hybrids, bikes, better planning (individually and on an urban/suburban basis), and maybe even A. Lovins Supercar someday.
CM is definitely on the right track. In my area, a few contractors are taking pride in designing houses that are cooler in the summer and warmer in winter through sheer good design and minimal increase in cost, though other options can be added that do pay for themselves.
Since rising energy costs hit poor people hard, this is an area I hope Habitats for Humanity is thinking about. Also, nonprofits, such as group homes for kids, could use help lowering energy costs with things like solar heaters, insulation, etc. There are many opportunities for these kinds of things.
Posted by Craig at March 7, 2006 03:22 PMNuclear plants with the likes of Homer Simpson at the controls would be as popular as the Spanish Flu, or perhaps the Ford Edsel.
Posted by tempus at March 7, 2006 06:07 PMThe irony for me is that as I labor on our unborn infanticide atrocity, in the back of my mind I am noting the on-going nuclear poisoning slowly strangeling infanticide survivors.
Scout, how many time do you have to be reminded of cutting out the anti-abortion crap from every unrelated topic. You are becoming very tiresome. Though some of your points are meaningful, take your little Crusade to another site.
For the cost of 1 nuclear plant 300,000 homes can have solar panels installed. For the cost of 1 nuclear plant you can loan homeowners the money to go off the grid, they can repay the money, and the program becomes self funding. I know they don't work in Canada...except for the fact that they do work in Canada.
Why won't this work? Assholes like muck need to keep their investment in old energy secure.
Posted by phidipides at March 7, 2006 06:25 PMNuclear Power? Inefficient? I don't think so. Efficiency is it's main appeal, sweetie.
The ratio of uranium fuel versus coal/oil/whatever else needed to produce the same amount of electricity is astoundingly small.
The safety checkpoints and procedures are essentially foul-proof, especially in the United Staes.
My Dad is a nuclear safety engineer [I guess you can tell from my tone]. For about a decade, his job was in peril, and it wasn't certain the industry had a future. But nuclear plants are now recruiting new nuclear engineering students like hotcakes. In the past year or so, my Dad has found himself being bid away by another company.
China especially is expected to be a booming market, and those whose job it is to analyze the market for new reactors predict a big increase in demand.
If you can get past the fact that Christy Brinkly [with her multiple Ph.D.'s] is scared of nuclear power, you might realize it's the best alternative out there.
Oh yeah, and I love some of you think that Nuclear Power= Homer Simpson and Nuclear Weapons.
These things are alike in pop culture alone.
Nuclear waste can be turned into nuclear weapons? This is so rediculous, I don't even know where to begin.
Referring to 'eleanor's' comment..., Unfortunately, the plutonium in spent nuclear fuel (so called "waste") can be chemically separated from the other fission products. It can be further used as fuel in new fuel assemblies. It is further unfortunate that the plutonium could be diverted for weapons purposes. The plutonium created in light water reactors is not ideal for weapons purposes, but can still be used.
I agree with 'eleanor' that nuclear energy can be used safely. Furthermore, using a "fast reactor" fuel cycle, it is possible to consume the plutonium that has already been produced in the world. It is better to use it for peaceful energy production than it is to leave it as a burden for future generations.
Posted by at March 7, 2006 10:47 PMPhilipides, where did you get that statistic from?
I did the math (based on a non-grid connected solar power system costed at about 25,000USD and nuclear capacity at 2000USD per kilowatt; with nuclear running costs approximately equal to capital costs) and at the most I can get 160,000 houses for solar (that's not allowing for installation or battery replacement, but nor is it allowing for the cost of transmission). The nuclear power station could supply 450,000 homes for the same price.
Assholes will make money selling anything if they think there's a buck in it. At the moment, all the bucks being made from solar energy are through government subsidies.
Posted by Robert Merkel at March 7, 2006 11:57 PMI'm all for improved efficiency, but that mostly keeps you where you are as demand goes up.
If you want to make headway, you need something that can provide large amounts of energy.
Wind is pretty diffuse, is an eyesore, and kills birds.
Wave power is less diffuse, but is something we really haven't tried. Warrants more research.
Solar takes a lot of land and photovoltaics are still too expensive, though there is progress here. Runs only during the day, however.
None of those are particularly attractive. That leaves:
Nuclear. Super high energy density, proven track record (look at France). Far lower radiation release than coal plants. Needs standardized designs. Waste problem is political, especially when you compare it with what C02 sequestration takes.
Satellite solar. Solar Power Satellites would be great. But... launch costs are ridiculous (need to make them by mining astronomical bodies), and you need space for rectennas on the ground.
I think not putting research into a standard nuclear plant that can be safe and cheap (I'm in Washington state, and I remember WPPSS...) is irresponsible.
And given the problem of global climate change, and increasing number of environmentalists agree.
Posted by Eric at March 8, 2006 11:32 AMnuclear goes hand in hand with central planning.
it's an incredible contradiction that libertarian types would espouse nuclear. because the distinct benefit of solar and distributed power is the independence and autonomy and personal freedom it affords.
energy supply and demand belongs in a free market economy. where individuals harvest power in a multitude of ways and sell their excess back to the grid.
there's our free future.
Posted by dave at March 8, 2006 12:45 PM