New Energy Act: not great for nuclear!

From the Nuclear Energy Institute blog:  

"One of the topics NEI pays close attention to, of course, is the role EIA sees nuclear power playing over the next several decades. According to the report, by 2030, 20 GW of new nuclear capacity are projected to be built as well as 2.7 GW in uprates and 4.5 GW in retirements. Total nuclear capacity in 2030 is projected to increase to 118.8 GW from today's 100.3 GW. This year's nuclear projection is a step up from last year's report which forecasted nuclear will only increase to 112.6 GW by 2030."

"20 GW" of new nukes by 2030! Folks, the U.S. is in a very bad situation. I always emphasize the positive (like "20 more than we have now!!!!! Take THAT Wasserman/Calidcott!) but, this actually means falling behind in terms of a pure % of nuclear in the generation mix and does not a thing to slow down the growth of fossil (and everything evil that comes from this).  While design paradigms from the French are all well and good (and will keep us even safer & save us all money in the future) US private energy corporations are acting in the opposite way the French did (and most nations developing nuclear do now, like China) in terms of planning a term synonymous to syphilis to most private energy companies or any capitalist for that matter.

While design paradigms from the French are all well and good (and will keep us even safer & save us all money in the future) US private energy corporations are acting in the opposite way the French did (and most nations developing nuclear do now, like China) in terms of planning a term synonymous to syphilis to most private energy companies or any capitalist for that matter.

Planning is what it is going to take, a true Manhattan Project-like national goal that subordinates the private interests ("greed") of the utilities to the needs to society that dictate the massive building, by a factor of 5, of the predictions the the EIA believes the number on new NPPs will be by the willy-nilly whims of investor owned utilities. They have to get F'ing serious. This US "renaissance" is more like a fly-by-night West Village art show than the unveiling of Guernica at the Prado in Spain. Don't misunderstand, I'm all for it. But has to server our interests first, not stock holders and Board of Directors.

The "National Energy Act" of 2007 is simply a set of goals, some financial incentives for this or that energy project. The milage aspects are concrete and hopefully, will reduce fossil use in cars (we can only hope) and other transportation. Maybe. Even the "Loan Guarantees", something that you'd think the free enterprised "free entry, free exit into the market place" Boards of Directors would shun out of ideology really do nothing in terms of setting free human creativity in terms of developing the right kind of reactors, the massive numbers we need, etc. From a nuclear activist point of view, this is the ultimate "wussey" deal since it does so little to enhance our use of fission vs that of fossil.

David Walters

•  Don't worry

  You nuke-lovers are getting a beautiful handout in the appropriations bill.

  I guess the trillions of dollars the U.S. government has spent to subsidize the nuclear industry and the tens of billions it continues to spend just isn't enough, huh?

  Maybe fission vs. fossil isn't the right debate.

  by The Cunctator on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

  •  What's your plan for supplying baseload

    electricity that does not emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases?  Right now we have three sources of baseload (look it up on Wikipedia) electricity: fossil fuels, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.  The lowest emitter is nuclear.  Its comprehensive life cycle carbon emissions are about the same as those for the comprehensive life cycle of wind power (remember, the concrete and the steel have to be made by burning coal).  Those are our choices.  

    Geothermal can supply baseload if you happen to live in an area with vulcanism.  But no city is going to get all its power from geothermal.

    Wind and solar supply less than 1% of our electricity.  In relation to the small amount that they do supply to the grid, these renewables have received huge subsidies.  Of course fossil fuels get the biggest subsidies, and all energy in the US is subsidized.  In Denmark wind power has to be subsidized because it cannot pay its way on its own.  But I have no problem with subsidizing renewables and trying to find a way to store their weak and intermittent electricity in a way that might assist them in larger scale applications.  They always need backup.

    The riddle for me is that commercial nuclear power supplies 73% of our clean electricity and in over 50 years has not caused one death to a member of the public.  In the last century dam failures killed over a thousand Americans and in this century so far have killed several people.  Coal-fired plants kill 24,000 Americans a year (fine particulates).  And to back up wind and solar, fossil fuels are burned.

    In terms of environmental impact, per square meter nuclear is cleaner and greener, according to J. Ausubel,head of environmental studies at Rockefeller U., than all other energy sources.  Which is why I as an enviro support it.

    by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:32:33 PM PDT

  •  Quick question

    How much will these subsidies actually cost (in dollars) the US taxpayers?

    by raoul78 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:49:38 PM PDT

    •  ZERO.

      No money. See my response below. But, there are direct payments to NPP builders that are distinct from these loan guarantees which don't amount to anything, actually. The direct payments are DIRECT subsidies upt o about $8 billion for the first 8 GWs of power or, eight plants. So who ever gets their plants online first/or gets NRC approval, gets the subsidy. This was voted on earlier this year.

      David Walters

      by davidwalters on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:57:10 PM PDT

      •  Too high.

        The most likely cost to taxpayers is negative, since the construction syndicates will have to pay a fee to get the loan guarantees.

        by Joffan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:44:18 PM PDT

•  Americans Do Not Want Nuclear Power

  It's too expensive and too dangerous.

  Here's a much better way.  Nanosolar has found a way to make solar panels for $1/watt.  Not only is this much cheaper than old-fashioned nuclear power plants, it's sustainable and environmentally sound too.

  Best of all, it's still "nuclear power", so NNadir and davidwalters will really like it.  It's just more practical, and doesn't require vast, wasteful government subsidies.  Or for small children to die from cancer because of the radiation released by old-fashioned nuclear plants.

  by bincbom on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:37:41 AM PDT

  •  Please explain how nanosolar can run a wind

    turbine factory.  Thank you.

    by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:33:20 PM PDT

  •  One thing to keep in mind re: nanosolar

    When I checked out their website this morning it turns out that they use a nanoparticle ink to print their screens.  This may turn out to be important.

    In the last course I took in graduate school (Science and Policy in case you're interested) one interesting topic was the subject of nanotechnolgy.  
    First, the term itself is difficult to define, so nanosolars use may just be a marketing buzz word.  On the other hand, if they are in fact using nanometer sized particles in their ink, theres an open question regarding the health and environmental impacts of nano-scale particles.

    Here's an activist website with the catchy name nanofoe.  

    While $2 installed (and there was a comment on the main page post by a contractor suggesting it'd still be closer to 5 or 6 residential) for solar is great, and I would probably buy at that price (well, except that I live in an apt atm), there may be serious environmental and health repercussions to their manufacturing process.  It may also be absolutely fine, but there has been very very little work done on the toxicity of nanoparticles, and it also seems that most of it is going to be particle specific.  If you're worried about nuclear waste (which, at least for civilian power production has been completely contained and hasn't yet been definitely proven to have harmed anyone) you should also be concerned about the release of particles which are almost, if not entirely, impossible to monitor and contain and for which essentially no toxicology or environmental impacts have been assessed.  

    by raoul78 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:29:45 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for the warning

      Besides Global Warming and Hillary Clinton, there is probably no greater threat to the future of Mankind than Nanotechnology:

      Nanotech: small science, huge threat

      Imagine I was selling a magic machine that would solve all your problems- and make me rich. Imagine I told you that you already bought it, thank you very much, and all your problems will soon be solved. Would you be worried? Would it concern you if I dismissed any questions you had or your neighbors cries that the magic machine was really no good?

      That's where we find ourselves with the new science of nanotechnology (See "University of Oregon puts big hopes in tiny technology" RG 7/14/03) We're told that nanotech is already on its way and don't worry - we'll love it. Quick fix solutions for our problems; tax-funded research, megaprofits and unprecedented power for the nanotechnologists. This new science threatens to create a sci-fi future ruled by a global super-elite with nanotechnology forced upon the minds, bodies and surroundings of everyone else. Nanotech insider-literature clamors for just that. If we take what they are pushing -- we will be making a very big mistake.

      more gorey details here

      Be afraid, very afraid . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:00:40 PM PDT

      •  I don't want to be alarmist

        most of the new nanotech stuff will probably turn out to be harmless, but we're making an awful lot of it (stain-resistant dockers anyone?) and we don't really know how it reacts with biological systems.

        by raoul78 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:13:03 PM PDT

        •  See Raoul?

          I could take the anti-nukers method and state "Well, we don't know anything about it, lets not do it at all!". "We should ban it because it might be dangerous". "suppose the suckers escape and turn us into raving Aussie pediatricians...", etc, etc. But I don't. I suspect this is not real "nanotechnology" from the sci-fi genre but rather nano-tech that works simply at the molecular level.

          David

          by davidwalters on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:15:41 PM PDT

          •  Nanotechnology

            is essentially any material produced on a nanometer sized scale; I'm not talking about self-replicating nanomachines.  Here's the intro to a short review in Nature Nanotechnology

            The rapid expansion of nanotechnology has resulted in a vast array of nanoparticles that vary in size, shape, charge, chemistry, coating and solubility. Take carbon nanotubes, for example, which have been intensively studied because they have new and unusual mechanical, electronic and other properties. The potential toxicity of these materials has attracted attention because of their apparent similarities to asbestos and other carcinogenic fibres (Fig. 1). Carbon nanotubes are long, thin (just nanometres in diameter) and insoluble — all factors that contribute to fibre toxicity in the lungs

            (bold is mine) Nature Nanotechnology 1, 23 - 24 (2006)

            Particles on this size scale interact with biological systems in strange ways, but we're putting them on everything from pants to solar cells without really understanding their toxicity.  

            by raoul78 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:01:44 AM PDT

  •  Americans want clean power

    No, most Americans favor nuclear energy.  Some folks don't want it but I think they might change their minds when they see what thorium energy and liquid-fluoride reactors are capable of doing: they can run on a fuel that will last tens of thousands of years; they have incredible inherent safety; and they can be built in a compact and cost-effective manner.

    Don't throw "nuclear" out with the "light-water reactor" bathwater--learn more about other reactor concepts and what they are capable of doing.

    by thorium on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:54:03 PM PDT

    •  Majority polled favor nuclear power

      Nuclear Power

      ``From what I understand, if we don't do something in the next 10 years to fix global warming we're in big trouble,'' said poll respondent Travis Mitchell, a 59-year-old furniture maker from Parksley, Virginia.

      Sixty-one percent of the poll's respondents said they would support increased use of nuclear power -- which doesn't emit carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases -- as a way to reduce global warming. That's up from 52 percent in a Los Angeles Times poll in 2001.

      Thus sayeth a Bloomberg-L.A. Times poll.

      by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:27:26 PM PDT

  •  Actually $1/watt for solar

    is more expensive than nuclear. 1W solar capacity corresponds to only 0.25W of nuclear capacity.

    Nevertheless a great advance for remote power requirements.

    Distributed generation is a good way to hide the problems and consequences of electrical generation by dispersal. There will still be problems, but they will be hard to track down and much harder to eliminate. It's not a roadblock, but it is a consequence of that choice of approach.

    by Joffan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:51:46 PM PDT

•  Germany ELIMINATING All Nuke Plants By 2020

  Isn't that something?

  Surely there is a good reason.  Maybe it's because it has been shown (AP) that there is a greatly increased incidence of cancer in small children when they live within a 50km radius of a nuclear power plant?

  by bincbom on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:39:20 AM PDT

  •  And replacing them with coal

    heres a quick link toThe Economist and one more Planet Ark.

    The recent study you mention has not been presented in a peer reviewed journal, so take it with a grain of salt.  The last similar study I read about essentially cherry-picked the data to come to a similar conclusion (I can't find a non-biased link atm because the recent german study is dominating google, but here's one to NEI).

    The link I read about the most recent German study you mention suggests that perhaps 20 cases of chilhood leukemia may be caused by living near a NPP (and thats, btw, over a 23 year period).  

    Now, assuming Germany replaces NPPs with coal, 1 for 1, how many more people will die?  

    Here's a site I've just skimmed briefly regarding coal power plants and premature deaths.  It looks like, that in the best case scenario (assuming 75% reduction of current NO and SO emmisions, and we'll assume the new coal plants in Germany are built this way), coal plants in the US are responsible for some 12000 premature deaths per year.  A quick wikipedia look tells me there are about 1500 coal fired power plants in the US.  So, 12000/1500, each coal plant in the US is therefore responsible for 8 premature deaths/year.  

    A quick wikipedia search tells me germany has 19 NPP.  Again, some quick math, these 19 power plants may have caused an additional 20 childhood cancers over 23 years.  Each NPP then causes an additional 20/19/23=.045 childhood cancers per year.  So, 8 premature deaths from relatively clean burning coal plants -.045 additional childhood cancers (we'll assume they're terminal) gives us 7.955 more deaths per year by replacing NPPs in Germany with coal.  

    Maybe not the best decision after all?

    by raoul78 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

    •  Your speculation is being proved wrong so far.

      Many plans for new German coal plants have been scrapped this year in light of public opposition and government hints at tougher emissions laws that will make coal use far more expensive. Those plans remaining will produce barely enough electricity to replace the older coal plants scheduled for decommissioning over the next decade, let alone phased out nuclear plants.

      Historical coal use of the past two decades doesn't support your speculation. German coal use has been fairy unchanged in the current decade, after massive cuts (mostly from taking very inefficient East German plants offline) in the 1990s. Most of the drop in coal was accompanied by a rise in natural gas, with nuclear remaining steady:

      

      Your theory is testable on a shorter time scale, given that the latest IEA monthly electricity stats show a large drop German production of electricity from nuclear plants: for the first 8 months of 2007, compared to the same period in 2006, German electricity from nuclear was down more than 15% or about 17 TWh.

      Has that 17 TWh shortfall been met with coal? Short answer, no. The change in electricity from combustibles is only 1 TWh. Larger sources making up the difference this year:

      • reduction in net exports: 2 TWh
      • increase in generation from renewables: 3 TWh
      • reduction in total consumption: 11 TWh

      So if 2007 is any guide, most replacement for phased out nuclear generation will come from conservation, efficiency and renewable sources. Any increase from combustibles is likely to be from natural gas, not coal.

      by retrograde on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:28:35 PM PDT

      •  Well, that's a relief

        I'm sure that Germany is much better off increasing its dependence on Russian natural gas rather than increasing its dependence on South African coal. (Oh wait ... it is increasing its dependence on SA coal too.)

        And Putin was named Time's "Person of the Year." Seems like he deserves it.

        by bryfry on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:22:40 AM PDT

        •  Germany is not alone there

          Italy, France, Spain ... the trend is increasing natural gas use all over Europe. But the media-provided impression of it all coming from Russia is simplistic. In  fact, none of those countries gets even a third of their imported nat gas from Russia.

          The biggest obstacle to greater Russian profit from natural gas is the nation's own consumption. Russia produces 50% of the natural gas burned in Europe, but also consumes 70% of what it produces.

          But the natural gas supply problem is far greater in the United States. There's little difference in the annual production of the USA and Russia, but a huge difference in reserves. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy puts the Proved Reserves/Production ratio of both the USA and Canada at around a decade - yet natural gas remains the top sector of new electricity capacity.

          by retrograde on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:34:15 AM PDT

          •  Well ...

            Far less than a third of the oil consumed by the US comes from Saudi Arabia, yet that country plays a very important part in our foreign policy. We're dependent on Saudi oil, even though we don't get all of our oil from there (in fact, we get more from Canada and Mexico). Russia now has a very strong influence over much of Europe because of natural gas. They don't have to supply all of it.

            by bryfry on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:33:08 PM PDT

      •  Its hard to find

        actual numbers of how many new plants are going to be built.  Here's an article from sep from reuters stating that its down from a planned 20000 MW to 8000 MW by 2012 (and they need to replace around 30000 MW by 2021, some portion of which covers the nuclear they are phasing out).

        My simple calculation above says thats (assuming 6 new plants) an additional 48 premature deaths per year.

        Even with the IEA data you provide, assuming coal plants and nuclear plants average similar sizes, you would have to have a ratio better than 22 TWh of nuclear lost to compensate for the increased deaths generated by an additional 1 TWh of coal (note, that may be the case with the numbers you cited, but I can't navigate through the IEA page to find the data to see what proportion of the 1 TWh from combustibles is coal vs. gas).  

         

        by raoul78 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:14:35 AM PDT

      •  Oh ... and by the way

        Germany's nuclear industry had a really good year in 2006. So I'm willing to cut them some slack for not being able to perform like that every year, especially in a climate where stupid ideologues in the government are trying to shut down the industry.

        From VGB's April 2007 newsletter:

        German nuclear power plants worldwide in the lead also in 2006

        In 2006 the most successful nuclear power plants in the world were operated in Germany. Seven out of ten worldwide best production results were achieved by German nuclear power plants. The nuclear power plant ISAR-2 was world champion in energy production for the 8th time. This war reported by Deutsches Atomforum e.V. (DAtF) on February 19, 2007.

        In 2006 the 17 German nuclear power plants apparently produced some more energy than in the previous year. As the association Deutsche Atomforum reported on January 17, 2007 in Berlin, the production of the nuclear power plants had increased by 2.7 per cent up to 167.4 billion kilowatt hours. On average the individual German power plants had been in operation slightly more than 91 per cent of the time. That means two percentage more than 2005. The Atomforum called the nuclear energy as the basic pillar of the supply safety.

        by bryfry on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:38:18 PM PDT

    •  And of course we're not talking cancer

      but things like asthma, emphizima, and heart disease etc. The 30,000 deaths in the US are not strickly or even in their majority from cancer.

      So...the amount of coal being burned in German as a result of their ban doesn't appear to be going down but will go up. The charts below show it leveling off for 2005 and then it ends. Coal kills thousands more than nuclear now, so we got to get rid of the coal and get more nuclear. Eventually the German will undo their ban, and, start building.

      david

      by davidwalters on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:57:02 PM PDT

  •  ...and the coal "doesn't count towards Kyoto"

    I for one am con-fuzzled about how all these new German coal plants won't mess up their Kyoto emissions targets, but I guess you can find fuzzy math across the world.

    by thorium on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:55:36 PM PDT

•  Wrong. You got your handout...

  ... from Pete Domenici (third paragraph).  Send him email and thank him, and stop complaining here.

  It helps to do a current news search before you shed tears over lost pork.

  by Plutonium Page on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:51:35 AM PDT

  •  Are you OK with ocean acidification?

    Check this out and let me know how wind and solar will turn this one around.  Thanks.

    by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:29:51 PM PDT

•  No Nukes

  I remain unconvinced that nuclear power has a future. Even if your so called "right kind of nuclear reactors" were somehow extant, they are still prohibitively expensive, non renewaable and uninsurable. When solutions such as solar heated power generation (where a solar mirror heats oil and boils water) are available, safe and practical why would anyone in their right mind favor nuclear power of any sort?

  by tinhat7 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:59:25 AM PDT

  •  Nuclear works well in December in the north

    and with nuclear, we're not taking the chance of another Chernobyl, nor are we taking on the role of caretakers for dangerous wastes for a longer time than democracies have existed.

    When solar is good enough that astroturf groups turn against it as the Sierra Club turned against nuclear in 1970, then we'll know it's "available, safe, and practical".

    by GRLCowan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:04:52 PM PDT

  •  Don't bury your head in the sand tinhat

    You don't know how expensive they are, you don't know that they're uninsurable, and how can you call something non-renewable that has millions of years of fuel supply?

    Look, you don't have to be crazy about nuclear energy, but these statements are pulled out of thin air.  Do you want to get into a detailed discussion of why a thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor is uninsurable?  Do you know about the strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity or the freeze plug?  Do you know how these things work?

    Learn more, don't believe me.

    by thorium on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:58:25 PM PDT

•  PV Solar At $1/watt Is Extremely Compelling

  Remember, these Nanosolar panels are now shipping product.

  There's nothing futuristic or fanciful - the Nanosolar people are done with their 1st generation product development and are actually shipping these things now.

  This is a tremendous development, and promises to revolutionize electricity generation.  Nanosolar is currently deploying its first production panels to a large solar generation station being built in Germany.

  Remember, $1/watt is about have of what a coal-fired power plant costs, and about 1/3 of what a nuclear power plant costs, without having a terrorism target, radiating the population, or creating an environmental disaster with nuclear waste.

  by bincbom on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:29:46 PM PDT

•  These nuclear power threads are always

  (almost) as entertaining as reading the stem cell threads on right wing blogs.

  I'll check back later and will hopefully be greeted with more helpful information describing how one molecule of radiation can kill me. . .

  by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Only if it inconveniences oil and gas interests

    does one particle hit of ionizing radiation represent a danger. Radiation exposure from propane tanks? From flying in oil-burning airliners? In that case, there is, apparently, such a thing as a safe level, indeed, there is such a thing as a level that physically exceeds anything anyone got from Three Mile Island, yet is too low even to think about.

    by GRLCowan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:53:26 PM PDT

    •  But, but, but

      propane tanks can be painted to look like really cute cows.  I saw that on TV.  So that makes them all A-OK with me.

      You can't debunk that, really you can't no matter how hard you try.

      by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:10:27 PM PDT

  •  Correction, Roadbed

    Not one molecule--one subatomic particle!

    When I realize that 30,000 of these are passing through my body every second I have to go lie down and do deep breathing.

    by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:32:32 PM PDT

    •  I think my point is proved

      insofar as the one "molecule" of radiation (which I postulated to be deadly) appears to be much worse than your subatomic particles (which only seem to cause you to do what I spend all day doing anyway)

      by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:42:11 PM PDT

      •  LOL n/t

        by Plan9 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:21:25 PM PDT

•  Oil and petroleum consumers subsidize the EIA

  and this gives them an antinuclear perspective, since nuclear power in the USA is neither subsidized nor, because of its fuel's extreme cheapness, much of a fuel tax revenue source. It's not subsidized, but it costs government money by leaving it in citizens' pockets.

  Five years ago the EIA had an interesting graph of the shares various energy sources had in the United States' energy supply. Up to 2002, straight lines fitted to the petroleum and nuclear traces seemed headed for an intersection in 2015.

  But, remarkably, just at the time of the graph's construction, the two traces seemed to see each other, and abruptly change course to avoid the collision! In its projections of the then future, the EIA couldn't conceive of something as wonderful -- from its tax-receiving point of view -- as petroleum continuing to lose share while nuclear continued to gain it.

  Liquid fluoride reactors are OK, I guess, but there's nothing wrong, either, with in-service reactors that allow a billion dollars a day not to become oil money nor gas money. Your Wikipedia article should link this, as previously said.

  How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

  by GRLCowan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

  •  Er ... make that oil and GAS consumers ... (nt)

    .

    by GRLCowan on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:14:32 PM PDT

•  $1 a watt?

  "Nanosolar"? OK, fine. That's $1,000 KW or, on the very low end of what a nuclear power plant (AP1000) costs. The "$1 a watt" does no good with out storage. Oh, ok, we'll add another $2/watt, or, now, $2,000 KW...now we are approaching what an average NEW NPP costs and a little above what a coal plant costs.

  Regardless, I'm all for R&D in this direction. Don't have a problem. But such trickle-power does little to support the grid, of which only 20% is residential and 80% manufacturing, commercial, agricultural, transportation, etc. And, it's $2,000 KW for only about 10 hours a day and almost useless above the Portland, OR to NY, NY parallel.

  Hand outs. Ah yes, stupid load guarantees. Basically this costs the tax payer...exactly how much? ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. Only if their project fails and it's doesn't run. So...if the Greenies are able to stop one of the latest batches of NPPs, then it will cost the tax payer. But if the Greenies fail, and the NPP is built, goes on line, etc, then it costs us nothing. Wanna guess which side I'm on: "No New Taxes".

  Americans Do Not Want Nuclear Power????? According to who, you? The tide is changing. Most actually don't oppose it but of course it's how the question is poised, isn't it? What I have seen is more and more people supporting it. An outright majority? I don't know. Most polls do indicate this. But that's not how it will be decided. It will be decided locally.

  Germany. These wacky Germans will overturn their idiotic, murderous ban on nuclear or they simply will not meet their carbon goals. The think about ionizing radiation is that little of it comes from NPPs, it comes from natural background sources (350 millirem a year). NPPs, on average, are only 15 millirem a year. In the US today, 1400 coal plants (about 400 big ones) kill about 30,000  a year, estimates are higher, obviously. NPPs kill no one a year. So much for statistics .

  There Germans have actually scaled back their 18 or whatever coal plants they were going to build down to about 6 after universal outcry. Still, 6 more than they have now. They are doomed without their nuclear power and they know it. Next election will decide. Most Germans now are open to the idea of the newer generation of NPPs. Same with the Swedes, with the same stupid ban (which NEVER had a majority for phasing out NP, BTW).

  David Walters

  by davidwalters on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:52:29 PM PDT

  •  It's a gray day in Alabama...

    ...and even at $1/watt, these solar panels wouldn't be making any money today.

    Look I love solar power, but it's not baseload.  It's not going to be baseload.  Let's develop it for the niche applications and go after coal with something that will really work: thorium.

    by thorium on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

  •  It really steams me how we're falling behind

    China in EVERYTHING these days.

    They're up to 750,000 deaths from coal while we're stuck at a measly 30,000.

    D'oh.

    by Roadbed Guy on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:18:13 PM PDT

•  Thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactors

  Since this was brought up by "Thorium" here on this diary, and such reactors are MORE applicable now to helping solve most of our energy problems (including transportation fuel) I might as well list this to help you with finding out more:

  Energy from Thorium Discussion Forum

  Energy from Thorium Blog

  Liquid-Fluoride Reactor Document Repository The major database for all things involving Molten Salt Reactors (of all kinds). A truly amazing find.

  The great wiki entry, again, a work still in progress, for Liquid-Fluoride Reactors. A good basic definition and description.

  This form of fission power is basically inexhaustible, uses one 1/300 the amount of fuel than standard uranium LWRs, and have 1/300 the amount of waste left, most of not dangerous after 300 years. It IS the future.

  David Walters

  by davidwalters on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:13:23 PM PDT

  •  a little qualification...

    Let me qualify some of these statements about waste a little bit.

    A liquid-fluoride reactor can burn thorium (which is 3x more abundant than uranium) essentially to "ash" or the nuclear equivalent of ash: fission products.

    These fission products are HIGHLY radioactive, but precisely because they are HIGHLY radioactive, they decay quickly.  Half of them decay to stable isotopes in the first week after formation.

    A two-fluid fluoride reactor, running on thorium, can use distillation to produce highly-concentrated fission product waste.  Such a reactor would produce about the same amount of radioactivity as today's light-water reactors, measured on a waste-per-unit-electricity basis.

    Two major differences: the light-water reactor would produce a much greater VOLUME of waste (since the fission products are dispersed through the solid fuel) and waste that has much greater LONGEVITY.  This is because the light-water reactor forms lots of long-lived "transuranics" as it burns the uranium.

    Here's a comparative image.

    The transuranics dominate the long-term (>100 yr) radiotoxicity of the waste, as you can see from this graph.  The green line represents what you can achieve with a thorium-fueled fluoride reactor; the red line represents what we've got today with the spent fuel from light-water reactors.

    I may like thorium reactors better than today's light-water reactors, but I like light-water reactors FAR more than coal!  And I live 20 miles downwind from three LWRs!

    by thorium on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:25:16 PM PDT