from sperm whales - they are starting to recover nowadays

I saw an interesting TED debate last night about Nuclear power vs Wind/Solar.
For the whole world's energy, we'd have to cover an area the size of the US in wind turbines and/or solar panels.
Whereas the amount of uranium needed to provide electricity for one person's entire lifetime would fit in a Coke can (2 lbs of waste). (even more amazing, when compared to the amount of CO2 from the equivalent amount of coal generated electricity)

The fact that so many of these turbines and their associated components are being manufactured in China (with their astonishingly exceptional materials quality control) is very reassuring.

Now that opened some breakers! As did the previous from Lube.

Graham, interesting post, my oldest daughter just received her PhD in "Radio" chemistry from WSU. (Go Cougars). Her explanation (to my level) is VERY interesting. Especially considering Jimmy Carter's education, his decisions, and resulting treaty constraints.

Karl
88 Targa

The difference is the CO2 doesn't make you glow in the dark and give you two-headed babies.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for using nuclear power as a temporary method to bridge us from where we are today (stupidly dependent upon foreign oil) to a sustainable energy solution in the future (fusion, tidal, hydro, wind, some combination of these sorts of sources), but to think nuclear (the fission variety) is the be-all end-all is very naive.

Also keep in mind that despite billions of dollars invested, Obama just recently killed the Yucca Mountain program, so we'd be right back to Square #1 insofar as finding a viable long-term disposal solution.

Seven billion people on the planet, two pounds of highly radioactive waste per person, that's roughly seven million TONS of highly radioactive waste per generation. That's not so great sounding anymore, is it?

The idea that we'd have to cover an area of the earth the size of the U.S. with wind/solar farms sounds dramatic, but it really isn't. There are HUGE areas of the planet that are unpopulated or sparsely populated and power generation could be a very useful tool in giving some of these areas an exportable commodity to lift them out of poverty - the key (and the limiting factor) is the infrastructure necessary to store and transport the energy. Wire is still expensive to produce and even more expensive to run. Battery technology is still horribly inefficient (although there have been some breakthroughs recently that hold promise for large-scale power storage).

Nuclear is great in the short-term for getting the U.S. off of oil (at least for our electrical demand, it won't do squat for our transportation infrastructure). It is not so great as a global long-term or permanent energy solution.

I am way out on a limb.....probably shouldn't even reply, with-out the 'kid' to offer explanations.

The two pounds/person is w/o Re-processing, which Jimmy Carter (physicist) prohibited in the SALT treaties, which provides alot more 'waste'. How about measuring waste in grams or ounces/person.

Better stop, this will rapidly get over my head, just like her defense. After her name, things went downhill....:>)

But, I am very proud

Not arguing, not proposing, not supporting.

But, the proper use may provide opportunities that we have not realized.

Karl
88 Targa

I agree with Jeff.... Nuclear is not a viable long term option... Storing all that waste is messy and dangerous....


Honestly bring on the windmills... I live in the middle of a very windy area. There are weeks here that its 30mph daily.... A still day is a rare occurrence. From my house I can see 2 very large wind farms. I think they are cool. Dad wishes they would build one on him. He's considered building his own smaller one.

I dunno about the other makes, but Suzlon S-88 2.1Mw units use 100% synthetic oil anyway. from modified vegetable feedstock.

Jeff,

The problem is political with nuclear, not technical. Most of the "waste" today could be recycled and re-used, but is not because of FEAR of nuclear proliferation. We should be using breeder reactors and using Plutonium for power generation.

All waste from all reactors in the USA is presently being stored onsite. Making 5 times as many reactors in the USA would not put waste on every door step. Yucca was again techically fine, but was shut down because of Harry Reid and the fear of shipping the waste through the Las Vegas area. Again, a political issue, not a technical issue.

And finally, the best reason to go strong for nuclear, we have a whole bunch of weapons grade fission materials that needs to be run through a nuclear reaction, which is the only thing which will make it "safe". We might as well get electric power from it in the process.

Finally, 1950s/60s nuclear designs are very inefficient. With a pebble bed reactor, run in a combined cycle system, we could easily achieve 45% efficiency and probably reach the mid-50's using GE FA (1980s/90s technology). That would reduce the waste to 1/3rd, for each watt produced.

Again, the problem is political, not technical. And we have hundreds of years of proven reserves of Uranium. It will be a stop gap, until we can develop the final energy source, which is mass to energy conversion.

Totally agree with James.

Nuke IS THE WAY TO GO, politics and ninny's aside its the best option.

As for dealing with the waste there are ways to deal with it. I would love to have one of the "suitcase" nuke power-plants in my back yard. They would power the entire block of houses and need to be replenished every 20 years.

Once we get electricity like this that is cheap and plentiful then I would think about an electric car to do errands and such. Until that time will have to keep fussing with my solar panels in the back yard and wind generators. Not using the sun and wind is just plain stupidity IMHO.

Joe A

Back in the late '50's / early '60's, the assumption was that nuke power would be abundant and that electricity would be nearly free. It may one day fulfill that promise if the Nuke industry does a good job of earning the public's trust and the public gets on board. I think it would be great if this happens...no foreign oil. :)

Jim,

As much as I hate to use this word, but France has done it for years with no issues. Believe that they have something like 80% of their power needs taken care of by nuke power. We can do the same if not better, just need to throw the PC and NIMBY idiots out with the wash and forge ahead.

Getting the public's trust is tough, when you have Hollywood and the media against you. They have been extremely dishonest on safety and waste. Honestly, I don't understand why the left would be against Nuclear Power.

I know we have had more deaths from Wind Turbines than Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, in the US, since there haven't been any deaths in commercial nuclear power plants. Ever.

Let's be fair...the Nuke industry wasn't without fault. Money has a way of making people cut corners. We're seeing this right now with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. The media looks for anything they can exploit to turn a profit. Same with Hollywood, although they have some "true believers," too. Confidence building can happen if taken in modest steps, especially if framed in the context of other eco-disasters (Gulf of Mexico Oil) or national security (ME/Venezuela Oil). The Nuke industry needs to get their butts in gear and turn public opinion around. So far, all I hear are crickets chirping.

Until you look at the cost/ benefit analysis. Wind and solar is some of the highest cost kW-h out there.

Speedy:)

Wait until Iran drops the atomic bomb on Israel and the entire Middle East becomes a war-zone. Price of all petro products will go up 10x overnight and I will be so happy that my solar setup is out there chugging away every time the sun is out...

We cannot be this short sighted that "its not cost effective" because oil is at $70 a barrel TODAY. Its not going to be this price forever and as well eventually we are going to start running low on oil.

The failure in the nuclear industry most similar to the BP situation, was Chernobyl. That can't happen here. Chernobyl had no containment facility and was a carbon moderated reactor with positive thermal feedback. A very unsafe design. It even used wood for part of the structure! And while the design problems were bad, the people running it were the real problem.

U.S. Nuclear Accidents

Some listed at that website are small potatoes, some not. As you pointed out, the biggest problem are the people that run the facilities. I would love to see the industry earn the public's support again. We'll see.

That list actually missed a few and most are more than a little over the top. Browns ferry fire knocked out the instrument monitoring. But the control system went to fail-safe and did what it was supposed to do.

The deaths were either in experimental/non-commercial reactors, non-reactor facilities. In fact, there has always been a bit of question over the Idaho plant explosion. It seems there was a love triangle, and it is probable that the "accident" was an attempt to kill one of the people in the love triangle. It ended up killing both men, and a third.

The Radiation releases and "deaths", were highly exaggerated in TMI. One woman who claimed radition in her house, it turned out to be radon gas, which is fairly common in the area.

The commercial Nuclear Power industry is about the safest industry in our country, even safer than airlines.

I'm all for nuclear as a 50-100 year solution. If we can reprocess spent fuel and cut the end waste product quantities down, then so much the better (I'm not a nuclear engineer so I don't fully understand how the reprocessing works and what the ratios of "X" spent fuel to "Y" unusuable waste, plutonium or whatever would be - I'd have to research it or learn more).

The point is there's only so much uranium ore in the earth in the same way there's only so much oil. Eventually it becomes inefficient and unproductive to rely on these sorts of non-renewable resources. Maybe there's enough to last thousands of years - again I don't know. But I'm fairly sure that nuclear power isn't the "holy grail" of endless clean power that we're looking for - at least not fission. Maybe fusion can/will be if we can figure out how to harness and control it reliably.

Thinking "big picture" here for a moment - the greatest evil that confronts mankind is poverty. It is the origination point for manifestations of human greed, inequality, manipulation, war, violence, exploitation, etc. Anything that can be done to empower people to get out of poverty will help us advance as a species and will increase the chances of human survival long-term by minimizing the chance that we will destroy ourselves in some silly conflict over resources, religion or ideology. Allowing wind or solar farms or hydro plants (or in the future, tidal or fusion plants) to be built in remote/poor areas will help lift those people out of poverty and give them something the rest of the world wants/needs. An exportable good. And such the seeds for a sustanable future of humanity can be sown.

If OTOH we persist in trying to jealously guard these things and hide behind excuses to keep them stuffed in boxes for the benefit of a few wealthy corporate interests, we are ALL the losers as instability, inequality and conflict are the inevitable results.

I'm NOT saying "give these things to the poor countries". I'm saying, "if the concern is the real estate required to make them viable, let's let those countries decide if maybe this is an opportunity to lift themselves out, for the benefit of all.

For obvious reasons this can't be done with nuclear. It certainly CAN be done with more sustainable/renewable sources.