McCain tours nuke plant, renews call for nuclear power expansion in U.S. 19

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Gustavion Posted 2:26 am
   06 Aug 2008

   There could be worse things...Expanding nuclear power isn't exactly what I would consider the best possible future of energy but with improving technology in the sector, it is better than at least coal.

   Permalink

2. 

   GRLCowan Posted 2:44 am
   06 Aug 2008

   No-one *personally* dislikes nuclear powerIt's always the vicinity of your back fence, not their own, that they want to keep it out of, because it cuts into their oil and gas tax revenue. McCain has an advantage in understanding that.
   Witness the contemptible claim by the article that the plant McCain visited had a less than ideal safety history. Like every plant in the USA, it has never hurt anyone -- except the oil and gas interests.

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:04 am
   06 Aug 2008

   The model for "The China Syndrome"And "We Almost Lost Detroit", that had the first unit near meltdown in 1966, and still can't be cleaned up because of radiation levels.  "...had a less than ideal safety history."
   I like this, it puts all plants which "...had a less than ideal safety history."  on a par with this nuclear power disaster.  
   This is why testing is needed before new plant designs are built.  The public can not take the word of the industry/government (non) regulator revolving door club anymore.
   "Fool me once..er..  we won't get fooled again!"  What great commander in cheif said that?

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:12 am
   06 Aug 2008

   I Personally Dislike Nuclear PowerAnd so does anyone who wants to protect the natural environment from the hideous effects of uranium mining and additional radioactivity.

   Permalink

5. 

   Masked Goddess Posted 6:25 am
   06 Aug 2008

   What happened to the chant, no more nukes?Okee dokee now...nuclear power.  Just what Mama Earth needs.  

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 9:36 am
   06 Aug 2008

   Nukes Make Great H2 Generators
   
   Nukes are great for generating hydrogen.   Especially now that we have a low cost, low availability process available.
   That means that nukes are not limited by the distance of the power lines.   We can have a few nukes dedicated to hydrogen production and ship the gas anywhere...to fuel 21st century autos and SUVs.

   Permalink

7. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:02 pm
   06 Aug 2008

   An Energy "Gristedes" To Shop In
   
   Sure, people come in all shapes and sizes.
   Some like nukes. Some don't.
   Some like hydrogen.  Some are h28ers.
   Thing is: new nanotechnologies will let us have a charcuterie of energy.  
   Here's some fuel cells that may be able to use biofuels directly and be built locally in every neighborhood (c'mon...someone here has to like that!):
   Nanotech Fuel Cell Research May Clear Hydrogen Hurdles
   
   http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=6437
   The nano-scale surface structures being developed are hundreds of times smaller and more precise than existing technology, which offers several expected advantages, McIntosh said. For instance, nano-scale surface structures will make the ion reactions much quicker and more efficient. "It's very important to control the issues down at that scale where everything is happening," McIntosh noted.
   More efficient chemical reactions may allow these new fuel cells - known as direct-hydrocarbon solid oxide fuel cells - to operate at much lower temperatures (500 degrees Celsius instead of 800), making them more stable and longer-lasting, McIntosh said.
   The goal is a fuel cell that can produce 10,000 hours of electricity to be used in a new type of small power plant, which would provide enough power for a small town or even a city block. A distributed power grid based on such plants would be more efficient than our current power grid.
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:15 pm
   06 Aug 2008

   These aren't for hydrogenAnd are already in use with biogas.  They run on methane or other hydrocarbon fuels.  With a turbine generator to capture the excess heat energy they can reach over 70% efficiency.
   Several breweries are using these solid oxide fuel cells with biogas produced from their waste.
   The ceria/copper solid oxide fuel cell design is inexpensive and anti-fouling.  
   Hydrogen is used in direct fuel cells that produce very little heat.

   Permalink

9. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:22 pm
   06 Aug 2008

   Neither are these...
   
   From the same article...
   [DARPA] has put out a request for a portable power generator that uses fuel cells running directly on diesel fuel
   Wow...Joe Romm will love those (j/k)...
   
   

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 3:12 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    Department of silly walksDARPA is beside the point, under Poindexter they analyzed the "silly walks" of alleged terrorists as a security measure.  Don't take anything from them seriously.
    Boeing is already working on small, portable solid oxide fuel cells to provide backup power for their airliners.  And as a power source for UAVs.
    These will be a step towards 100% plugin cars, and maybe even power airliners with a fraction of the fuel use of regular turbofan engines.  Maybe even power them on biogas/natural gas.
    Clean efficient air travel, are you listening Branson?  hehey.

    Permalink

11. 

    enki09 Posted 4:14 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    Maintaining The Status QuoBig Nuclear is more or less like Big Oil. A very few major players have a monopoly on energy now and because of this they are able to virtually circumvent normal capitalist circumstances in the marketplace. Prices are essentially fixed without competition determining price.
    That may be one of the biggest fears that the major players have with the advent of new fuel sources. Their monopoly will be broken by small producers who can produce fuels and energy locally.
    So they spend millions to convince people that they must support big oil/nuclear/coal. After all, the economy of the world is based on oil and having new fuels emerge which can challenge oil also challenges the entire world economy as it stands today.

    Permalink

12. 

    vakibs Posted 7:12 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    It is demand vs supply @enki09
    This is what determines the price of a product. This is the #1 lessson in economics. Why do people forget this so easily ?
    With nuclear power, you have essentially lot more energy than you can demand. This reduces energy prices. Monopoly or not.
    If you exclude nuclear, energy production will be cut back enormously, and this rises up energy prices (even if energy is produced by lot of cute little solar companies)
    These rising energy prices will hit the poorest people the most. People living in Africa, India and the countries of the south suffer the most. American poor will suffer the most. The rich will always hog the energy, whether it is solar or nuclear.
    Preventing monopoly is a well-known science. We know how to solve it. What is more dangerous is a monopoly over media and telecommunication, than a monopoly on energy. We are going to solve these problems in the market anyways.

    Permalink

13. 

    earlysnows Posted 10:18 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    nuclear wastebeyond the safety of the plants, this is the issue--nobody wants nuclear waste, what will you do with it? the thought of more nuclear is ridicluous.

    Permalink

14. 

    vakibs Posted 10:26 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    there is no nuclear waste @earlysnows
    There is no nuclear waste. It is all nuclear fuel. Just the supposed "waste" that is currently hanging around nuclear reactors can provide for the world's energy needs for several hundred years to come, with no need for new Uranium mining.
    Interested ? Educate yourself on breeder reactors. These 4th generation nuclear reactors are consistently killed by fossil-fuel hawks in the US administration, with unknowing environmentalists providing vocal support from behind.
    
    

    Permalink

15. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:10 pm
    06 Aug 2008

    RiiightIt's all "fuel".  Even that decommisioned reactor core lying in that unlined landfill trench in South Carolina, contaminating groundwater and rivers?
    This leads right back to...  the obvious compromise.
    Take ten years to build, test, and prove a few of these purportedly , inexpensive, marvelous, new, safer, waste recycling reactors.  Until then no new nuclear power plants.
    Public trust in the nuclear industry must be restored before going further down the nuclear energy path.
    Meanwhile a renewable distributed generation and storage smart grid and conservation will reduce demand for centralized baseload power.  Compare cost and safety after 10 years, then decide on any new nuclear power plants.
    In 20 years when the rampant genetic disease increase from nuclear power becomes obvious, it will be too late. If nuclear power continues on the present course, trillions of dollars of capital will be diverted from a real climate cure employing renewable energy and conservation.
     

    Permalink

16. 

    northbranch Posted 10:14 pm
    11 Aug 2008

    safety record"However, the backdrop for his nuclear-safety claim was less than ideal. The nuke plant McCain was touring has been the site of a number of nuclear accidents ...."
    It would be helpful if the writer of these lines would tell us how many people were killed or injured in these accidents.
    
    

    Permalink

17. 

    Otusasio Posted 4:22 am
    12 Aug 2008

    Balancing on an AtomThis is a touchy subject for sure, but there is a huge story for Grist fans here because we are able to think beyond the highly charged (pun intended) term NUCLEAR and consider the balance of all the interconnections of our environment. The new generation of technologies that supply, for instance, a great majority of France's energy needs, can not even be compared to what was being done in the U.S. 30 years ago when we built our last nuclear reactor.  We have the opportunity to produce an enormous amount of long-term energy while significantly reducing our nuclear waste issues.  95% of the latent energy remains in our current nuclear "waste" (ergo degradation times of 10,000+ years). Recycling that material to regain up to 90% or more of that remaining energy will leave material with degradation times of 100s of years as opposed to orders of magnitude longer.  As opposed to some claims, this material would not lend itself to the production of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. Therefore, it has two additional benefits: removing potential terrorist theft targets and continued compliance with our non-proliferation treaty.  The filtering processes at these nuclear power plants would release air with less radioactivity than ambient air. Not so with fossile fuel plants. Have you noticed that this proposal does not require any new mining for Uranium while we continue to perfect renewable energy sources? I have been an environmentalist since before it was a popular term, but I have to ask the question, What is there not to like about the next generation of nuclear power?

    Permalink

18. 

    Otusasio Posted 4:23 am
    12 Aug 2008

    Balancing on an AtomThis is a touchy subject for sure, but there is a huge story for Grist fans here because we are able to think beyond the highly charged (pun intended) term NUCLEAR and consider the balance of all the interconnections of our environment. The new generation of technologies that supply, for instance, a great majority of France's energy needs, can not even be compared to what was being done in the U.S. 30 years ago when we built our last nuclear reactor.  We have the opportunity to produce an enormous amount of long-term energy while significantly reducing our nuclear waste issues.  95% of the latent energy remains in our current nuclear "waste" (ergo degradation times of 10,000+ years). Recycling that material to regain up to 90% or more of that remaining energy will leave material with degradation times of 100s of years as opposed to orders of magnitude longer.  As opposed to some claims, this material would not lend itself to the production of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. Therefore, it has two additional benefits: removing potential terrorist theft targets and continued compliance with our non-proliferation treaty.  The filtering processes at these nuclear power plants would release air with less radioactivity than ambient air. Not so with fossile fuel plants. Have you noticed that this proposal does not require any new mining for Uranium while we continue to perfect renewable energy sources? I have been an environmentalist since before it was a popular term, but I have to ask the question, What is there not to like about the next generation of nuclear power?

    Permalink

19. 

    Otusasio Posted 4:38 am
    12 Aug 2008

    RadioheadYou boob!  Don't you know this would ruin a lot of sad folk songs and indie movies if you screwed up the monster of nuclear energy like this?!  Besides what about the babies? Oh, and what about the mushroom clouds? Don't forget the mushroom clouds.  You call yourself an environmentalist. True environmentalists chain themselves to nuclear plants. It's those nutty environmental scientists that help site them and design them for safe operation.
    Signed,
    Alter Ego?

    Permalink