Kruse Kronicle

Nuclear power needed now

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Detnews.com: Nuclear power needed now

… These nuclear plants will pump out power for economic growth without creating smog or loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

The United States already operates the largest fleet of nuclear power plants in the world with 104 reactors producing about 20 percent of our nation's electricity, but there hasn't been a groundbreaking for a new plant since 1973. Although utilities are seeking licenses to build and operate about 30 new reactors, the challenge lies in the financing of new plants. In the current economic climate, it's difficult to obtain private financing.

But nuclear power's revival in the United States is inevitable. It is paved not only by the need for more generating capacity but also by favorable cost comparisons with other fuels, concern about climate change, and improved licensing procedures.

To be sure, we also need to consider all forms of renewable energy as they become cost-effective, but the unavoidable truth is that nuclear plants occupy a small fraction of the land required for solar and wind power. And while nuclear plants produce electricity about 90 percent of the time, wind turbines generate power, on average, only 30 percent of the time and require back-up electricity from fossil fuel turbines on days when the weather isn't cooperating. Solar energy is less efficient, providing electricity only 20 percent of the time.

Nuclear power, therefore, must play a larger role in maintaining our nation's energy security and reducing atmospheric pollution and acid rain. Nuclear power also has economic benefits, as it provides a stimulus for new jobs and revenue. …

Other factors make nuclear power attractive. But it is interesting to me that many of those who are emphatic about the causes of global warming and its coming consequences based on irrefutable science are the same ones who reject scientists' claims about the safety of nuclear power plants.

 

Comments

12 responses to “Nuclear power needed now”

  1. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    Your last paragraph: Bingo!
    Dana

    Reply
  2. james aach Avatar
    james aach

    FYI: you might find this an interesting look at the US nuclear energy industry, written with da public in mind by a longtime engineer. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com

    Reply
  3. David Avatar
    David

    Couldn’t agree more! US navy has been opperating Mini nuclear power plants very safely on it’s ships and subs for years.
    This is a no brainer and past time to really engage.

    Reply
  4. phil Avatar
    phil

    I’m currently helping a national government determine the likely spatial implications of pursuing various energy generation mixes, which includes decisions regarding nuclear, solar and gas power plants. I often come up against this common complaint
    “nuclear plants occupy a small fraction of the land required for solar and wind power”
    while this might be true, on a GW-installed versus plant-footprint (land area) allocation, it fails to take into account many of the “hidden” spatial implications of nuclear power.
    1. Resource extraction sites
    2. Waste Storage areas
    3. Safety/ exclusions zones
    Nuclear still probably comes out as lesss land intensive, but it’s not a simple comparison.
    There’s also the “land use opportunity cost” associated with the locations in which the plants are located. CSP (concentrated solar) can be built in areas that are unsuitable for most other activities (i.e. you put them in the desert), so the land-use opportunity cost is very low anyway, because you’re not going to use that land for anything else.
    Nuclear sites are determined, largely by two spatial needs;
    1. Away from dense urban areas
    2. Close to a water source (usually fresh water)
    An interesting, albeit loaded question is asked in the article: “why are oil-producing countries in the Middle East and beyond turning to nuclear energy”. Well, there are a few reasons for this;
    1.Because they can (there is an element of big-boys toys about the nuclear power programme). There’s a sort-of nuclear proliferation race going on in the mid-east
    2.Yes, the future reduced-gas resource situation is a factor
    3.Mid-east nations, due in part to economic growth (last 30 years) are pursuing a policy of generation diversification
    4. The article also fails to note that the middle-east is ALSO turning to renewables. The largest PV plant is being built in Saudi, and in the UAE there are ongoing investigations into super-large CSP, and pilot projects being built at MASDAR.
    As with most things, the weighing up of alternatives is not quite as clear cut as it is made out to be in a newspaper op-ed.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Phil, I just finished reading “The Bottomless Well.” You might enjoy it. They touch on some of the issues you raise comparing one form of power generation versus another.

    Reply
  6. phil Avatar
    phil

    thanks for the recommendation, I need a new book.

    Reply
  7. Dan Anderson-Little Avatar
    Dan Anderson-Little

    Michael,
    To quote a former politician whose name I cannot recall, “There you go again.” (It’s Reagan, I know!) Your last paragraph is just plain silly. Where is the evidence that people who are convinced of the science of anthropogenic climate change are the same ones who reject scientists’ claims of safe nuclear power. And you present these two scientific “findings” as if they are equivalent–that there is equal agreement amongst scientists on global warming and safe nuclear power. There may be, but it would be helpful if you would show it rather than assert it with a degree of snarkiness. End of screed. Thanks.
    Dan

    Reply
  8. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    That is my favorite Reaganism. But you have to say tilt your head down and to the side a bit and say “Well …” make a short pause “… there he goes again.” Use it all the time with family. 🙂
    Well, no, I didn’t document everything but who are the people most opposed to the use of nuclear power? Environmentalist groups. Which people are the most avid combatants against global warming. Environmental groups.
    Ironically, it was Margaret Thatcher who saw a political advantage in raising the idea of greenhouse gasses and warming in the early ’80s, just as the idea was becoming considered as a possibility. Thatcher wanted to move to nuclear power to keep up with the French and others. But British environmentalists were successfully blocking her plan. She supported funding for the GW research, hoping to show that coal was the threat to the environment and win over environmentalists to nuclear power in the process. It didn’t work.
    Just as you can find scientists outside climate studies who say there is no warming, most in the field say there is some, though there are wide differences on what means and how it is happening. You can also find scientists outside nuclear science who offer apocalyptic scenarios but the view is widely held that the technology can be used safely.
    President Obama is an example of someone who is convinced of a global warming threat and yet wants to expand nuclear power. There are many such people. But from where is the opposition coming? From environmentalists who also believe in global warming.
    I can’t quantify the issue but I think my statement is largely true.

    Reply
  9. Dan Anderson-Little Avatar
    Dan Anderson-Little

    Mike,
    I am not sure where you are getting your facts about what the scientific community believes. You imply that there is not much agreement about climate science (“most say there is some, though there are wide differences”) and then imply that there is wide agreement about the safety of nuclear power generation and storage of waste (“the view is widely held”). So by your implication, the people who are concerned about global warming and also worried about nuclear power are on the one hand foolishly embracing a science with little agreement and ignorantly or willfully rejecting a science with wide acceptance. From what I know about climate science, there is a whole lot more agreement than you indicate (my main source being an earth scientist at Washington University who is well-versed in the science and what earth scientists understand to be true). I have not idea what the scientific community believes about nuclear power–and from what I can tell, the big worry among environmentalists is not so much the generation of nuclear power, but the storage of radioactive waste.
    I am sure that there are environmentalists who reject good science and embrace bad science. I just think we should be careful about deciding what is good science and what is not.
    Man, I love this blog! How refreshing to have real conversations and debates!
    Peace.
    Dan

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    My wording may not have been precise. I think there is very wide agreement that the earth is warming. There is wide agreement that human activity has been a part of the warming. In that sense, there is strong consensus. The wide range of views I was referring to was about how much warming is likely to occur, the precise causes of warming (and how much to credit to various causes, and therefore what measures to take to respond) and particularly what the consequences of the warming will be.
    My take is that the environmentalists who want to extend claims of consensus about warming to consensus about the most apocalyptic predictions … and therefore we should take their preferred measures because they are based on “science” … are frequently the ones who adamantly reject nuclear as unsafe and not a natural “renewable” form of energy.
    My dad was doing research in power back in the ’70s … including two summers a the Oak Ridge National Lab. I’ve been around energy research most of my life. I’ve never seen a survey of scientists about nuclear power safety but I’m taking the word of scientists I’ve known that are in the field. It would be interesting to see a survey.
    My overall point is that different sides of many issues tend to invoke science when it supports their views and reject it when it doesn’t. Usually science is considerably more nuanced than the pundits claim for their positions.
    I’m glad you come here, Dan. Differing views discussed civilly is iron sharpening iron. I always like your firmness of conviction coupled with appreciation for those who differ.

    Reply
  11. Dan Anderson-Little Avatar
    Dan Anderson-Little

    This is good stuff, Mike. I agree that we tend to use or overuse “expertise” as it fits our cause and reject it when it doesn’t. I do think it would be helpful to find ways to be able to know “what science thinks” about a certain issue. As I have said before, my friend who is an earth scientist says that there is little debate amongst climatologists about the amount of global warming or the cause. But I am not sure if that is his sense or if he has some data to back up that claim. I suspect that same is true for you with your family’s background in energy research–you know people in the field who understand it differently than a relatively uninformed layperson would. One of the things that makes this hard is that we have leaders who are willing to simply reject whole areas of science as being untrue or worse subversive–evolution is the one that comes to mind most readily, but even global warming–and here I just mean the fact that earth is warming–the past decade is the warmest on record in centuries. To even admit that is political suicide for some people.
    Well, I think I have exhausted this line of reasoning for now. New debates, new explorations, and new blog posts await! Write on!
    Dan
    PS have a great Thanksgiving. I am sure this year’s will have its sadness with the recent death of your mother. We have gone through that experience of missing my parents at holidays–missing them is sad, but it is also important to remember that we miss them because we loved them and because they loved us. Peace.

    Reply
  12. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks Dan. I know you recently lost your dad. It is something we all face eventually. Both my parents were essentially only children (my dad’s sister died at 7). No aunts uncles or cousins. So when one of our family goes it leaves a very big hole. Henri Nouwen writes of life being a process of continually giving up everything we love to God … eventually our very life … who in the resurrection returns it all and more. Amen.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Dana AmesCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading