With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look
By MARK LANDLER
New York Times
DAVOS, Switzerland
FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum’s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort.
And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda — and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe’s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland.
At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings.
“It has put nuclear back into the mix,” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. “We’re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits.”
____________________________
TM comment: Based on extensive work in the nuclear field, it is clear to me that nuclear power is far preferable to coal plants, which put as much as 40 times the pollutants into the atmosphere per MW generated as nuclear. The surprising thing is that existing coal plants put even more nuclear radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear plants per MW of power. The biggest rap against nuclear is a greatly exaggerated fear of anything that bears the word 'nuclear,' which many people have a serious phobia about, related probably to misunderstanding of the dangers. All power is a tradeoff, but coal is just about the worst. We use it primarily because we have a lot of it, and power companies can offload the true cost of burning coal onto an unsuspecting public which pays the rest of the bill in health and environmental costs.
Here's another piece of interest from the AP:
Tennessee Valley Authority to Pursue 2 New Reactors
Associated Press
Monday, January 29, 2007; A08
SPRING CITY, Tenn., Jan. 28 -- The Tennessee Valley Authority will submit applications to build two new nuclear reactors under the government's streamlined licensing process and restart its oldest reactor after a 22-year shutdown at Browns Ferry, TVA officials told the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
The public utility also plans to decide by August whether to spend up to $2 billion to complete the unfinished Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, the newspaper reported Sunday.
The total cost could exceed $7 billion for design and construction, officials said.
No new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania raised public concerns about nuclear power and caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revamp its rules.
But industry officials believe concerns about global warming have changed attitudes about nuclear energy. Nationwide, U.S. utilities are pursuing plans for up to 31 new reactors.
Proponents say nuclear power is an attractive alternative to coal, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and air pollution. Nuclear energy also provides an alternative to natural gas, which has been buffeted by high and volatile prices.
(It's continued here.)
New York Times
DAVOS, Switzerland
FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum’s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort.
And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda — and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe’s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland.
At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings.
“It has put nuclear back into the mix,” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. “We’re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits.”
____________________________
TM comment: Based on extensive work in the nuclear field, it is clear to me that nuclear power is far preferable to coal plants, which put as much as 40 times the pollutants into the atmosphere per MW generated as nuclear. The surprising thing is that existing coal plants put even more nuclear radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear plants per MW of power. The biggest rap against nuclear is a greatly exaggerated fear of anything that bears the word 'nuclear,' which many people have a serious phobia about, related probably to misunderstanding of the dangers. All power is a tradeoff, but coal is just about the worst. We use it primarily because we have a lot of it, and power companies can offload the true cost of burning coal onto an unsuspecting public which pays the rest of the bill in health and environmental costs.
Here's another piece of interest from the AP:
Tennessee Valley Authority to Pursue 2 New Reactors
Associated Press
Monday, January 29, 2007; A08
SPRING CITY, Tenn., Jan. 28 -- The Tennessee Valley Authority will submit applications to build two new nuclear reactors under the government's streamlined licensing process and restart its oldest reactor after a 22-year shutdown at Browns Ferry, TVA officials told the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
The public utility also plans to decide by August whether to spend up to $2 billion to complete the unfinished Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, the newspaper reported Sunday.
The total cost could exceed $7 billion for design and construction, officials said.
No new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania raised public concerns about nuclear power and caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revamp its rules.
But industry officials believe concerns about global warming have changed attitudes about nuclear energy. Nationwide, U.S. utilities are pursuing plans for up to 31 new reactors.
Proponents say nuclear power is an attractive alternative to coal, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and air pollution. Nuclear energy also provides an alternative to natural gas, which has been buffeted by high and volatile prices.
(It's continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR No Apologies!
In many parts of the world, including the US, there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A portion of the Mojave desert would be sufficient to meet the entire current US demand for electricity.
In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
Post a Comment
<< Home