Steven Andrew makes the point I’ve been touting – that nuclear is the only realistic and physics backed way to keep our nation powered. Also, it turns out that we are the “Saudi Arabia” of nuclear waste products and have enough of it laying around to power fast breeder nuclear reactors for 700 years:
Fast reactors could power this country for decades using that same waste as fuel. Fast reactors also happen to be about 100 times more efficient in converting that radioactive mass into electrical energy than thermal reactors, meaning they use relatively less fuel over time. Moreover, the waste from some types of fast reactors decays safely away in a matter of decades, making storage a far less worrisome and way less expensive proposition. And if we include the depleted uranium (DU) left over from the enrichment process, it would be something like 700 years before any more mining would be needed, once the current “thermal” types of reactors have been phased out. At the current price of energy, the existing DU alone is worth trillions in kilowatts and dollars.
Maybe if we agreed to let new plants be unionized we would get some?
It is unfortunate that, now, when we need strategic leadership with our common and future interests at heart, we instead have corrupt Chicago thugs partnered with America hating leftists in charge.
The answers really are simple… if you start with the right question.
The question “How can I steal for my voting block and donors” probably won’t lead to a better life for most of the U.S.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
This month’s (Dec 2009) IEEE Proceedings has an article on the subject of long term sustainable power. The conclusion is that only a solar thermal and hydrogen solution can do the job. Think steam turbines and H2 cars.
The other technologies have niche uses but all run into material shortages, affordability, or space limitations at some future point. Solar thermal can use today’s infrastructure for transmission, refueling, design and other support. A 500km square of sunny land is plenty to make all the electricity and bulk H2.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Do you believe them? Doesn’t nuclear beat solar easily?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Whether solar beats nuclear depends on how you account for ALL the costs and ALL the risks. Remember that advocates for anything overplay the benefits and underplay the risks and costs, especially the externalities. Before society adopts any solution, it should be fully apprised of ALL the risks and costs. Such appraisal would never come from any enterprise expecting to sell the power at a profit. And government policy of self-insurance and financial illusions guarantees that the appropriate insurance premium would never be estimated and paid by the enterprise nor by the government of the day.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
In other words… doom.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Oh, not to worry. We’ve given ourselves everything we wanted and charged the national credit card for four decades, and we can probably have another four decades – about to the end of your expected life span. You’ve enjoyed the post-WW II fruits so far, and can probably continue to do so for as long as you’re able to want things. After that, you’ll be beyond caring. Of course, your children and grandchlidren might call you the “me generation”.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
So it’s my fault now? You say that knowing I’ve not wanted any of this stupid spending, not supported politicians that spent it?
Funny ha ha.
The actual problem isn’t generational, it is structural. The amendment your parents gave us, abused by their children, with the exponential just hitting now.
Solveable? Sure – markets solve everything. Something will give.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Nuclear becomes unaffordable because of decommissioning costs if there are enough plants that need replacement every 20-40 years. Say 15,000 to generate all the power. Known uranium reserves are not enough to keep them running even with breeder designs.
Solar electric takes up too much terrain and water for cooling the arrays where the sunshine heats everything. The exotic metals and materials would also be exhausted fairly soon.
Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wave machines have cost, space, and capacity problems running everything.
Solar thermal is left. After fossile fuels start to run out a certain level must be reserved for lubrication, derivative products, and military use.
Any approach that requires extensive new mining is unaffordable.
Read the article if you disagree with my summary.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Newer plants don’t have the decommissioning problem.
I like solar thermal. I’ve written about it here. I don’t think 500km of space would be readily available and it would also have a lot of distribution costs.
I’ll check the article. Fusion would be a nice surprise.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Solar suffers from a critical weakness: clouds. I dare you to provide me with an effective way to power Seattle, WA on solar alone.
Yes, nuclear power has problems. However, compared to Coal’s polution and supply problems and Solar and Wind reliability and capacity problems Nuclear is a game-changer. Nuclear’s primary problem is long-term storage with a slightly irrational fear of a catastrophic failure.
I am a huge advocate of Nuclear power, but it alone SHOULD NOT be used to power our way of life. Solar panels and wind to a lesser extent should become a standard feature in our architecture. My parent’s house had solar panels for water heating when it was built in the 80s (poorly constructed and maintained, unfortunately. Useless by the time they bought the house). Nuclear can be the backbone, preferably in the fusion
I am sick of the soothsayers scaring everyone into “going green.” But don’t let the bastards detract from one basic fact: everybody wins when more efficient and cheaper technologies arise. Imagine the energy savings of double-paned windows and advances in insulation and drywall. The fact is that these advances weren’t because of some misguided law or blow-hard politicians or ill-informed ecoterrorists. They were engineers, and businessmen who built something that made the consumer’s life better, so the consumer adopted them.
I vote for letting the market do it’s job. When they finally finish the laser fusion technology I keep hearing about LET THEM BUILD IT.
Final argument: we aren’t going to be able to power our eventually necessary expansion into space on wind and solar. We must have nuclear power.