Comments on: Nuclear Power No Climate Cure-All http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:55:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: mike http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-19326 mike Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:38:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-19326 Are you guys living in a dream world? Hundreds of reactors for every 50 or 60 years of energy? So I guess you have figured out some way of making them non-radioactive upon decommissioning them. Terrorist earth quakes all that wont breech them some day? Necular Are you guys living in a dream world? Hundreds of reactors for every 50 or 60 years of energy? So I guess you have figured out some way of making them non-radioactive upon decommissioning them. Terrorist earth quakes all that wont breech them some day? Necular

]]> By: Tom http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-12084 Tom Mon, 05 May 2008 20:09:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-12084 Show me a study demonstrating that $24 billion invested in solar/wind would produce as much energy as that nuke plant, and I'll agree. But right now, you are arguing by hand-waving. Show me a study demonstrating that $24 billion invested in solar/wind would produce as much energy as that nuke plant, and I’ll agree. But right now, you are arguing by hand-waving.

]]> By: Peter S http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-12031 Peter S Mon, 05 May 2008 00:47:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-12031 The Keystone study, which was funded by the nuclear industry, mentions a levelized cost of between 8 and 11 cents per KWH. This is probably low, given the rate of cost increases for new large power plants. In the new generation of nuclear plants, the project furthest along is Turkey Point 3 and 4 in Florida. Estimated construction costs have ballooned to 18 to 24 billion, according to the company's own estimates.(Nucleonics Week, 2/21/08) Imagine for a moment if any state were to spend that amount of money on efficiency, solar and wind. The Keystone study, which was funded by the nuclear industry, mentions a
levelized cost of between 8 and 11 cents per KWH. This is probably low, given the
rate of cost increases for new large power plants.
In the new generation of nuclear plants, the project furthest along is Turkey Point
3 and 4 in Florida.
Estimated construction costs have ballooned to 18 to 24 billion, according to the
company’s own estimates.(Nucleonics Week, 2/21/08) Imagine for a moment if any state were to spend that amount of money on efficiency, solar and wind.

]]> By: Patrick M http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-11353 Patrick M Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:11:01 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-11353 "So nuclear is not a climate cure-all. Even climate advocates like John McCain get this wrong. In a March 2006 interview, he stated he would demand legislation to expand U.S. nuclear power as part of his efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: It’s the only technology presently available to quickly step up to meet our energy needs. Incorrect. " Not incorrect. Name another non-emitting source of electricity that could be used for 75% of baseload generation and do it cost-effectively? You cant. There arent any others besides nuclear. And nuclear is far from 8cents/kwh. more like 4-5/kwh. McCain is right to insist that nuclear is *part* (not all) of the solution. "So nuclear is not a climate cure-all. " No one energy source is, but none comes closer than nuclear. Nuclear energy has displaced more CO2 emissions than any other source of energy. Its clean energy compared to the coal that it replaces. "Actually this essay simply states the case of the mass production of breeder reactors." - Correct, we can reuse nuclear fuel, if we so desire and thereby stretch uranium supplies and reduce waste volumes. “So nuclear is not a climate cure-all. Even climate advocates like John McCain get this wrong. In a March 2006 interview, he stated he would demand legislation to expand U.S. nuclear power as part of his efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

It’s the only technology presently available to quickly step up to meet our energy needs.

Incorrect. ”

Not incorrect. Name another non-emitting source of electricity that could be used for 75% of baseload generation and do it cost-effectively? You cant. There arent any others besides nuclear. And nuclear is far from 8cents/kwh. more like 4-5/kwh. McCain is right to insist that nuclear is *part* (not all) of the solution.

“So nuclear is not a climate cure-all. ”
No one energy source is, but none comes closer than nuclear. Nuclear energy has displaced more CO2 emissions than any other source of energy. Its clean energy compared to the coal that it replaces.

“Actually this essay simply states the case of the mass production of breeder reactors.” – Correct, we can reuse nuclear fuel, if we so desire and thereby stretch uranium supplies and reduce waste volumes.

]]> By: Charles Barton http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-6515 Charles Barton Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:14:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/#comment-6515 Actually this essay simply states the case of the mass production of breeder reactors. Only breeder technology would provide the nuclear fuel for all the reactors imagined here. The only way that such a large number of reactors could be built is on an assembly line basis. Since we are going to be recycling so called "reactor waste", there will ne little need for long term repositories for spent reactor fuel. Assembly line production of reactors, which then can be shipped to on ships and barges to the power production sites around the world, will enable reactors to be manufactured for a fraction of their present costs. Actually this essay simply states the case of the mass production of breeder reactors. Only breeder technology would provide the nuclear fuel for all the reactors imagined here. The only way that such a large number of reactors could be built is on an assembly line basis. Since we are going to be recycling so called “reactor waste”, there will ne little need for long term repositories for spent reactor fuel. Assembly line production of reactors, which then can be shipped to on ships and barges to the power production sites around the world, will enable reactors to be manufactured for a fraction of their present costs.

]]>