Luke over at Physical Insights has an interesting post on replacing all of Australia's coal fired power plants (which account for 91% of their generation and well over half of their CO2 emissions) with nuclear power plants. Australia, as one might surmise, is ideally suited for nuclear energy because 90% of it's people live within 20 to 40% of it's coast...and Australia's coast is the greatest heat sink imaginable for base load power, nuclear included. I urge readers to take a look at this post.
This go me thinking about the US. There are over 500 GWs of coal fired generation capacity in the US today. It provides up to 30% of all CO2 emissions in the US today and, helps kill 30,000 people a year (probably more) due to the immediate threat of sub-PM-10 particulate (10 micron carbon soot that floats around from the stacks at 5 to 1 microns in size and causes cancer, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, you name it).
Let me start out by saying I'm not necessarily pro nuclear energy - I consider myself primarily anti-fossil fuels and I've come to believe over the last year or so that nuclear energy will be key if we want to get rid of coal and other fossil based fuels. Nuclear energy diaries may be the most contentious ones that are written on this site and since I started to comment in diaries on this topic, I've seen many of the same arguments come up over and over again, so I've decided to start a diary series to attempt to address some of these issues.
The first one tries to examine whether nuclear energy is really so much more expensive than wind or solar based solutions. If you're interested in seeing how much electricity produced from an overbudget nuclear plant in Finland, T Boone Pickens' wind farm, or a planned desert solar plant would cost, please read on.
This started off as a reply to a recent comment in another diary, but it became so long, that I thought that it was better served as its own diary entry. The answer is after the fold.
"America is one of three." Some might say the United States is one in a million. Surely, the superiority of this western nation is rarely questioned. The "land of milk and honey" is frequently referred to as a Superpower. Most think America might be considered truly supreme. Politically, economically, and militaristically the United States excels. This democratic nation has clout. America is able to control a situation, or a strategy.
What to do with Spent Nuclear Fuel? (or "waste" in impolite company).
Here is the much promised, never delivered, mostly dreaded "nuclear waste" diary I've ben promising.
The Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is what most people in the US call "waste", or high level radioactive waste. The US is one of the few countries who, in a fit of paranoia in the 1970s, banned the recycling of such SPF because the government believed that such SNF could fall into the hands of countries seeking such SPF to build bombs with.
Today John McCain focused heavily on nuclear energy and once again attacked Obama. The problem is that McCain continues to lie and no one calls him on it. Obama needs to hit back hard with a "fact check."
According to an article released today by the International Herald Tribune:
PARIS: Uranium-bearing liquid has leaked from a broken underground pipe at a nuclear plant in southeastern France, the national nuclear safety authority said Friday. It was the second leak discovered at a French site this month.
In a recent interview with Fast Complany.com's David Case, T. Boone Pickens made some interesting admissions:
Pickens: "I'm not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They're ugly. . . ."
Question: "So whose land is it going on?"
Pickens: "My neighbors', . . ."
Question: "What happens if Congress doesn't extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind -- set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that's an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity."
Pickens: "Then you've got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy."
Question: "What about when the wind doesn't blow?"
Pickens:"That's the problem with wind generation. You've got to supplement it with a gas-fired or coal-fired source so whoever buys it gets continuous 24-7 generation."
I hope everyone had a great 4th of July. Jacob saw his first real fireworks display and loved it at first. We were watching from the 12th floor of a building right on the waterfront, so it was spectacular. Unfortunately, he was coming down with a fever and by the end was pretty unhappy. He is fine again now.
Well, I lied again, no spent nuclear fuel diary yet. Really, the "check is in the mail". So, Charles Barton invervened again from his stunningly accurate and devastating critiques of Wind and Solar energy; their inability to fill the energy gap or provide a serious, cheap alternative to coal and natural gas.
So...we have here a "guest diary" from Charle's Nuclear Green web site. Hopefully comments will be many and lively and Charles will, if he feels he needs to, chime in here.
--David Walters
Introduction: The Center for Public Policy Studies is associated with the British Conservative Party, although its positions are not coordinated with the official party views. The Essay, "Wind Chills," by Tony Lodge, ought to be read as a political document, but it should not be dismissed simply because of its ideology. Wind Chills offers a penetrating analysis of the problems associated with wind. I have posted both the press release on Wind Chills and selected passages from the document
The future does not belong to those who write telephone books or repair horse harnesses. The future belongs to the innovators, those who bring new ideas to the table. In a zero sum game, more of the same is less. Clinging to the past is an admission of defeat. The President is at it again, telling us the Saudi Arabian increase in oil production is not enough; we must drill in ANWR. He tells the truth about the problem then gives us an answer that is a lie.
Today, in a little-noticed address in Springfield, MO, John McCain proposed that the US build 45 new nuclear powerplants by 2030.
Those of us who have read the science on global warming know how dire the situation really is. Most people have been led to believe that cars are the biggest part of the problem. They're not.
Powerplants are the biggest part of the problem, and one of the technically easiest to solve.
The Bush Administration is helping Saudi Arabia develop nuclear energy - yet Saudi Arabia has vast amounts of oil and endless sunshine for solar power. This op-ed "Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?", in the Wall Street Journal by Representative Markey (D. Mass.), outlines this outrageous policy.
I'm a supporter of nuclear energy, and now that the democrats finally have a nominee I wanted to make sure they see nuclear in the same way as I do, mainly, are they all for it? It looks like Obama is, which is great. Nuclear power is the only way we'll be able to supply the energy we need to keep growing economically without polluting and while reducing CO2 emissions.
The Obama campaign is pretty silent on the issue, I did not see anything about nuclear energy on his web page, but doing a little research, I see that Obama is getting a great deal of support from Excelon, a leader in the nuclear power generation industry, operating 17 nuclear plants and Yucca Mountain.
Hopefully, with the support of President Obama, Excelon can get more plants online and get Yucca Mountain opened for waste disposal so America can have a clean, bright, nuclear future. This is great news for the energy industry and the American people, the nuclear path can greatly reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources and fossil fuel consumption.
So, folks, while I get my act together on doing a diary on the "Spent Nuclear Fuel Controversy: 'Waste' or 'Resource', You Decide", I thought I'd throw this quickie out there to show that the US is not the only place that this discussion about nuclear energy is taking place...and in some cases it's far ahead of us. It can tide us over until we can delve into the meat of the spent nuclear fuel issue. So, I present to you the future, it appears, of the Nuclear Renaissance from the place the Renaissance actually started: Europe. We can chew this up for a few days, all are welcome, be polite, as usually, and as 'technical' as possible. Links are encouraged. Oh, thanks for the dozens of tips from the last discussion. It was good wasn't it? I think everyone made a positive contribution and perhaps we left with more questions than answers, which in my opinion, is always a good thing.
It seems like everyone is trying to twist their brains around the problem of high gasoline and oil prices lately. Kevin's latest ruminations, involving the impending decline of the natural oil supply, are here. Mine are in this post.
