Modern reactors built in the United States, yes, in other parts of the world, no. Nuclear power is the answer to our energy needs unless fusion power can be harnessed. We need something with a tiny footprint on the environment and has an endless, renewable source. That would be fusion power. Lets get the ball rolling on that and our energy needs will be met without limits.
All of the wind turbines and solar panels in the world simply can't supply the constant energy demands of modern day life.
The safety of any nuclear plant is predicated on the age, design, location and operation of the individual plant. The critical issue with nuclear plants relates to the fuel which is exceptionally toxic, the disposal of spent fuel which remains toxic and the security of these facilities vis-a-vis long-term safe storage and immunity to terrorist attack. There is also the collateral issue of transporting fuel/spent fuel to and from the reactor site.
The cost of building new plants is prohibitive, and the cost of generating power is comparatively expensive. The only entities who benefit from nuclear are the contractors who build the plants and the power companies who raise consumer rates to cover the cost of construction/operation. There hasn't been any new construction in decades due to the absence of an approved design and the extraordinary investment required to build one IF an acceptable design was available. Those that were approved are either on-hold or plagued by ballooning cost overruns- abandoned or indefinitely postponed.
Many communities are paying higher rates for power, required to BUY nuclear power as a percentage of their electric supply to augment the bottomline of existing nuclear generating plants.
No one believes that nuclear is the future except those that design, build and supply fuel to nuclear plants. This is recycled propaganda left over from the 1960s Peaceful Atom program. The hard-sell runs in opposition to everything that has been learned since...
'Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
Nuclear fuel is a very viable form of energy. It's largest drawback is doomsday proponents. Ginna power plant has been SO successful that it was retrofit with 2 new reactor cores and placed back online for indefinite period of time.
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
With Obama essentially killing just about every coal job in America, Nuclear power will become the least expensive form of energy, and the safest. CM, where'd you get your information from?
Sure it does CM so what if 4 people dont want to hear it. You makes such a stand for nuclear power, then Doug points out some facts and you give up? Makes it seem like to me that your dont really believe in what you posted at all. If so then why post it against the nuclear power source idea. Seems to me the costs you stated are all related to human sources pushing up costs to make money on the backs of power consumers, not real costs but inflationary ones.
78% of the electrical power generated in France is provided by 58 Nuclear Power Plants (Pop: 65 Mil)
In the US 104 nuclear reactors produced 807 billion kWh in 2010, over 20% of total electrical output (Pop 311 MIL)
France has the lowest cost per Kwh that any country in Europe and has a complete process in place from the mining of Uranium to the processing and recycling of Nuclear waste.
Personally, I am no fan of the French or most of their geo-political positions however, no one can take away from the fact that they have proven that responsible Nuclear Energy is not only feasible but highly effecient.
Just one nuclear reactor size of the two usually found on US submarines and aircrfat carriers can provide all the power needs for a city the size of Syracuse NY.
CM you are correct about cost of construction, but it is not the construction comapny that causes that, the cost are driven by redundancies incorporated due to government regulation, in this case those regulations may very well be appropriate. However, even with those added cost, the cost per Kwh of enrgy production is significantly less than other means of energy production and has a significantly lower environmental footprint than other means. Including windmills.
A square mile in size footprint by a Nuclear plant would require a line of windmills 1200 miles long minimum to generate the minimal output of a single Nuclear Plant. Further CM, your argument about construction companies being the prime benificiary of nuclear power is dwarfed by the benefits construction companies reap from windmills and produce 1/100th the power in return.
Now coal, we have enough coal presently available in the US to meet our power needs for over 100 years.
Also Natural Gas is a significant bi product of oil drilling, additionally in the areas surrounding the great lakes alone, we have more Natural gase than Saudi Arabia has oil
A combination of nuclear and coal power plants, the conversion of fleet vehicles to LP Gass (Natural Gas) an opening up drilling again in the US and maintaining the same 30% ratio of oil and natural gas imported from Canada and Mexico, could have North Amercia totally energy indepentdant in just two decades.
These aren't opinions, these are facts
Added Note: The State with the best level of employment in the US is North Dakota, the employment there was stimulated by the development of fracking and a boom in Oil and Natural gas production. Just something else to consider
Modern reactors built in the
Modern reactors built in the United States, yes, in other parts of the world, no. Nuclear power is the answer to our energy needs unless fusion power can be harnessed. We need something with a tiny footprint on the environment and has an endless, renewable source. That would be fusion power. Lets get the ball rolling on that and our energy needs will be met without limits.
All of the wind turbines and solar panels in the world simply can't supply the constant energy demands of modern day life.
The safety of any nuclear
The safety of any nuclear plant is predicated on the age, design, location and operation of the individual plant. The critical issue with nuclear plants relates to the fuel which is exceptionally toxic, the disposal of spent fuel which remains toxic and the security of these facilities vis-a-vis long-term safe storage and immunity to terrorist attack. There is also the collateral issue of transporting fuel/spent fuel to and from the reactor site.
The cost of building new plants is prohibitive, and the cost of generating power is comparatively expensive. The only entities who benefit from nuclear are the contractors who build the plants and the power companies who raise consumer rates to cover the cost of construction/operation. There hasn't been any new construction in decades due to the absence of an approved design and the extraordinary investment required to build one IF an acceptable design was available. Those that were approved are either on-hold or plagued by ballooning cost overruns- abandoned or indefinitely postponed.
Many communities are paying higher rates for power, required to BUY nuclear power as a percentage of their electric supply to augment the bottomline of existing nuclear generating plants.
No one believes that nuclear is the future except those that design, build and supply fuel to nuclear plants. This is recycled propaganda left over from the 1960s Peaceful Atom program. The hard-sell runs in opposition to everything that has been learned since...
'Nuclear power is cost
'Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
Nuclear fuel is a very viable form of energy. It's largest drawback is doomsday proponents. Ginna power plant has been SO successful that it was retrofit with 2 new reactor cores and placed back online for indefinite period of time.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
With Obama essentially killing just about every coal job in America, Nuclear power will become the least expensive form of energy, and the safest. CM, where'd you get your information from?
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html
Does it really matter? At
Does it really matter? At least four people don't want to hear it anyhow!
Sure it does CM so what if 4
Sure it does CM so what if 4 people dont want to hear it. You makes such a stand for nuclear power, then Doug points out some facts and you give up? Makes it seem like to me that your dont really believe in what you posted at all. If so then why post it against the nuclear power source idea. Seems to me the costs you stated are all related to human sources pushing up costs to make money on the backs of power consumers, not real costs but inflationary ones.
78% of the electrical power
78% of the electrical power generated in France is provided by 58 Nuclear Power Plants (Pop: 65 Mil)
In the US 104 nuclear reactors produced 807 billion kWh in 2010, over 20% of total electrical output (Pop 311 MIL)
France has the lowest cost per Kwh that any country in Europe and has a complete process in place from the mining of Uranium to the processing and recycling of Nuclear waste.
Personally, I am no fan of the French or most of their geo-political positions however, no one can take away from the fact that they have proven that responsible Nuclear Energy is not only feasible but highly effecient.
Just one nuclear reactor size of the two usually found on US submarines and aircrfat carriers can provide all the power needs for a city the size of Syracuse NY.
CM you are correct about cost of construction, but it is not the construction comapny that causes that, the cost are driven by redundancies incorporated due to government regulation, in this case those regulations may very well be appropriate. However, even with those added cost, the cost per Kwh of enrgy production is significantly less than other means of energy production and has a significantly lower environmental footprint than other means. Including windmills.
A square mile in size footprint by a Nuclear plant would require a line of windmills 1200 miles long minimum to generate the minimal output of a single Nuclear Plant. Further CM, your argument about construction companies being the prime benificiary of nuclear power is dwarfed by the benefits construction companies reap from windmills and produce 1/100th the power in return.
Now coal, we have enough coal presently available in the US to meet our power needs for over 100 years.
Also Natural Gas is a significant bi product of oil drilling, additionally in the areas surrounding the great lakes alone, we have more Natural gase than Saudi Arabia has oil
A combination of nuclear and coal power plants, the conversion of fleet vehicles to LP Gass (Natural Gas) an opening up drilling again in the US and maintaining the same 30% ratio of oil and natural gas imported from Canada and Mexico, could have North Amercia totally energy indepentdant in just two decades.
These aren't opinions, these are facts
Added Note: The State with the best level of employment in the US is North Dakota, the employment there was stimulated by the development of fracking and a boom in Oil and Natural gas production. Just something else to consider