I'm all for the innovation economy as outlined, but, that is even farther down the line than renewed nuclear power. It is good to think and work toward such things but it does no good to throw your hopes fully into that basket - there are so many real hurdles politically, scientifically, and technologically. There are many unknowns. There are present advantages to moving to more nuclear power. Not only will it in time help reduce greenhouse gases; it will also reduce our dependence on oil sheikdoms ("all that foreign oil controlling American soil"). It will reduce cash flow to terrorist states as well. Nuclear technologies are significantly improved, do not require the land and water resources, and are safer. With breeder reactors much of the fuel can be recycled. So, while we wait for the emergence of the innovation economy, nuclear is a good environmental option as far as I see it. Yes, in the mean time it would be nice of Congress had the will to upgrade mileage standards. Yes, it would be good if other incentives existed to reduce energy consumption. But here before us we have a very much improved technology, one that will reduce greenhouse gases, reduce dependence on other countries for energy, and quite possibly provide the energy to produce hydrogen for more widespread use of hydrogen as an energy source. The risks associated with the wastes are worth the advantages to this one tree hugger and wildlife lover. I say let's go for it.

Joel Gillespie Greensboro NC (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_nKdQ1rV6HN').innerHTML = output; //]]>

While Dave's arguments against more nukes are good for the general public, we enviros should not forget the most basic evil of nuclear power: uranium mining.

All mining is very environmentally destructive, and uranium mining also puts additional radioactivity into our atmosphere.  As there is no safe level of radioactivity, any addition to background levels is harmful.

Uranium is almost exclusively mined by Native Americans, mainly Dine (Navajo), who then suffer the cancers and other illnesses as a result.  The traditional Dine do not have electricity in their hogons (homes).  Non-native energy consumers who ignore this are being racist and/or elitist.

Nuclear energy is totally evil for many reasons and should be rejected out-of-hand by any thinking person.  We need to constantly promote conservation and simplification of lifestyles, not how we can further destroy the planet to meet so-called needs that don't really exist.

The innovative model of distributed energy production is certainly the goal; many kudos and thanks to all of those who are working towards this lofty aspiration.  However, for engineering types like myself, the reality of the situation is apparent: We need a reliable energy source that can meet the demands of a growing population to tide our society over until the distributed generation dream and the "slowly emerging innovation economy" (Patrick Doherty's own words, very slowly in my view) can become a widespread reality.

The nukes that are scheduled to be decomissioned over the next 15 years represent a sizable portion of our electricity supply.  The loss of these generating "assets" cannot be offset solely by renewable energy sources even if the renewable energy infrastructure is greatly expanded, largely due to the intermittant nature of solar, wind, and hydro power.  2000 MW (Megawatts) of wind power capacity, for example, cannot be expected to offset 2000 MW of fossil or nuclear; a more realistic evaluation for comparing intermittant renewable generating capacity with fossil or nuclear is MW hours per year as opposed to MW peak capacity.  Power storage has real limits with current technology in terms of efficiency and capacity, so intermittant, distributed renewable energy will need to be supplemented by central station fossil or nuclear generation well into the foreseeable future.

In my view, expansion of fossil fuel generation capacity is not the way to go for all of the readily apparent reasons.  Fossil-based DG may make sense in some regions, but here in the Northeast a tremendous amount of combustion-turbine generating capacity is sitting idle for most of the winter (and an ever-increasing portion of the rest of the year) due to rising fuel costs.  Attempts to bolster the supply of natural gas by increasing the LNG storage and transport capacity may not succeed due to local opposition based on safety concerns.  The way people are opposing LNG storage capacity expansion does not portend well for a future hydrogen-based energy infrastructure; the volatility characteristics of presurized hydrogen are not widely discussed, but this will pose a technological and public relations challenge will to delay widespread deployment of hydrogen-powered autos and fuel cells.

Regarding nuclear power, of course there are major drawbacks.  However, the realistic, short-term options are limited and not at all appealing (more CO2 spewing coal burners?).  I think nuclear power has promise as a 30 year bridge to a better future, but only if some of the major issues are addressed:

Waste disposal - A centralized processing and storage depot must be established, and all appropriate technology must be applied to re-cycle, encapsulate, and safely and securely store nuclear waste.  In my view, this must be done in any case even if another nuke is never built to deal with the existing problem, so let's get it done.  

Standardized Design - DOE and NRC must solicit bids for standardized design along the lines of the French model and then select a single design for all new nuclear generation projects.  The free-marketers will howl but we must stand firm: no single standard design = no new nukes.

Renewable Energy Manufacturing Partnerships -  This is the key element that makes the unpalatable nuclear option tolerable in my view.  There must be a provision that any new nuclear facility shall work in partnership with a consortium of solar, wind, and other renewable energy technology manufacturers.  The nuclear facility will be the center of a renewable energy manufacturing park (REMP) and some percentage of the power generated will be supplied to the consortium at a deep discount (free?).  The REMP infrastructure will be partially subsidized and will be constructed in conjunction with the new nuke.  

The REMP is the key, energy costs associated with the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines add a lot to the final product price and the energy used to manufacture these devices effectively reduces their efficiency.  The best data that I have seen shows that currently, PV solar must operate for 2 to 4 years just to offset the energy used to manufacture the solar panel.  If we are to see the tremendous growth in solar and other renewable technologies that we envision, the energy to manufacture the technology must come from someplace.  Point of manufacture subsidization makes a lot of sense as well and could serve as the critical element that drives the cost of renewable energy sources over the tipping point where the technology becomes affordable for widespread application.

I know nukes are a tough pill to swallow, I lived two miles from Three Mile Island in 1989 and have tasted the bitter, metallic taste of a radioactive iodine release (true story!!)  But, as I heard Christie Whitman say just the other day, "we can't just say no to everything".  There are many voices proposing alternatives to coal and nuclear power, but I wonder sometimes how well-grounded the proposed alternatives are in terms of technical, financial, and (recently) political reality.  Our challenge is to make the wise compromises and to promote a sustainable social and energy agenda at every opportunity; the renewed interest in nuclear power may be an opportunity for some bridge building in more ways than one.

If you support nuclear energy but are not willing to mine some uranium and store radioactive waste in your home, you're a hypocrite of the most harmful type.