Comments on: McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants (and seven Yucca mountains) costing $4 trillion http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: msn nickleri http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-26353 msn nickleri Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:53:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-26353 We would only need 250-300 new reactors that could be added to existing or be placed on new plant sites to be 80% nuclear powered electricity for the 2015-2020 term. Yucca mountain need not be a show stopper and should not be to make nuclear go forward. Nuclear “waste” is not waste, there are valuable elements and unused energy there that needs to be harnessed. There are many technologies to recycle, transmutate and use that fuel. We need not be afraid of our science, we need to embrace it and build a better tomorrow with it. We would only need 250-300 new reactors that could be added to existing or be placed on new plant sites to be 80% nuclear powered electricity for the 2015-2020 term.
Yucca mountain need not be a show stopper and should not be to make nuclear go forward. Nuclear “waste” is not waste, there are valuable elements and unused energy there that needs to be harnessed. There are many technologies to recycle, transmutate and use that fuel. We need not be afraid of our science, we need to embrace it and build a better tomorrow with it.

]]> By: Cyril R. http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-23768 Cyril R. Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:43:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-23768 Kevin: you need a fast reactor to breed from U-238 which is very problematic and even then you still cannot sustain a chain reaction on the plutonium alone; you cannot burn up nearly all the U-238 and so far fast breeders have proven to be very expensive, unreliable and/or dangerous. Jason: it is a question of money because you need to convince private investors/companies to put trillions in new energy infrastructure and generation worldwide. If they cannot have a decent return, you lose the lion's share of private investment. I am not convinced that we can build out lightwater reactors soon and quickly enough to really matter. Most of the industries are comatized. It takes at least a decade to revive it to reasonable levels. I am in favor of seriously attempting this, however that is not a guarantee that it will work as well as some people like to think, nor that it will be cheap. For one thing, the nuclear EROEI suffers somewhat with lower grade ores. Not a huge problem but it is when you're talking about exponential growth. Nuclear power is not as readily scalable as you would like to think. So nuclear absolutism is too dangerous a position, there is no basis for exaggerating to nuclear absolutism, in fact it is counter-productive. Efficiency and conservation must be the primary focus of government policy and subsidies for the short term. Once a serious price is put on carbon, and non-market barriers are mostly removed by the government and institutions, the market will decide very effectively what low carbon choices will be implemented. A small pruction tax and investment tax credit for all low carbon sources makes sense to me at least until there's a reasonable price on carbon. Kevin: you need a fast reactor to breed from U-238 which is very problematic and even then you still cannot sustain a chain reaction on the plutonium alone; you cannot burn up nearly all the U-238 and so far fast breeders have proven to be very expensive, unreliable and/or dangerous.

Jason: it is a question of money because you need to convince private investors/companies to put trillions in new energy infrastructure and generation worldwide. If they cannot have a decent return, you lose the lion’s share of private investment.

I am not convinced that we can build out lightwater reactors soon and quickly enough to really matter. Most of the industries are comatized. It takes at least a decade to revive it to reasonable levels. I am in favor of seriously attempting this, however that is not a guarantee that it will work as well as some people like to think, nor that it will be cheap. For one thing, the nuclear EROEI suffers somewhat with lower grade ores. Not a huge problem but it is when you’re talking about exponential growth. Nuclear power is not as readily scalable as you would like to think. So nuclear absolutism is too dangerous a position, there is no basis for exaggerating to nuclear absolutism, in fact it is counter-productive. Efficiency and conservation must be the primary focus of government policy and subsidies for the short term. Once a serious price is put on carbon, and non-market barriers are mostly removed by the government and institutions, the market will decide very effectively what low carbon choices will be implemented. A small pruction tax and investment tax credit for all low carbon sources makes sense to me at least until there’s a reasonable price on carbon.

]]> By: Jason http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-19862 Jason Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:58:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-19862 The logistics of any energy infrastructure overhaul is going to be expensive, no doubt, however the question is not of expense, it is of economics. Wind, solar, and tidal forms of energy all have a weather dependency, limited capacity factors, and intensive CO2 frontload profiles. Vandium batteries are not practical as baseload balance elements either. Nuclear, hydro, and geothermal are the only non CO2 emitting baseload power sources. Environmentalists, and everyone for that matter, need to give due credit to the job nuclear has done so far by suppressing the equivalent pollution from all the vehicles in America. Consider that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro coal and pro oil. Nuclear energy is the only readily available technology that has the power to threaten coal and oil's reign. If I was a coal or oil company, I would give lots of money to renewable investments because it would make me look like a good guy while I know that the little pinch it makes in my business amounts to good PR. If you are anti-nuclear, then you are pro fossil fuels, end of story. We would only need 250-300 new reactors that could be added to existing or be placed on new plant sites to be 80% nuclear powered electricity for the 2015-2020 term. Yucca mountain need not be a show stopper and should not be to make nuclear go forward. Nuclear "waste" is not waste, there are valuable elements and unused energy there that needs to be harnessed. There are many technologies to recycle, transmutate and use that fuel. We need not be afraid of our science, we need to embrace it and build a better tomorrow with it. The logistics of any energy infrastructure overhaul is going to be expensive, no doubt, however the question is not of expense, it is of economics. Wind, solar, and tidal forms of energy all have a weather dependency, limited capacity factors, and intensive CO2 frontload profiles. Vandium batteries are not practical as baseload balance elements either.

Nuclear, hydro, and geothermal are the only non CO2 emitting baseload power sources. Environmentalists, and everyone for that matter, need to give due credit to the job nuclear has done so far by suppressing the equivalent pollution from all the vehicles in America. Consider that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro coal and pro oil. Nuclear energy is the only readily available technology that has the power to threaten coal and oil’s reign.
If I was a coal or oil company, I would give lots of money to renewable investments because it would make me look like a good guy while I know that the little pinch it makes in my business amounts to good PR. If you are anti-nuclear, then you are pro fossil fuels, end of story.

We would only need 250-300 new reactors that could be added to existing or be placed on new plant sites to be 80% nuclear powered electricity for the 2015-2020 term.
Yucca mountain need not be a show stopper and should not be to make nuclear go forward. Nuclear “waste” is not waste, there are valuable elements and unused energy there that needs to be harnessed. There are many technologies to recycle, transmutate and use that fuel. We need not be afraid of our science, we need to embrace it and build a better tomorrow with it.

]]> By: Kevin http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-17919 Kevin Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:56:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-17919 Uranium is far more abundant than oil in relative terms. First, Uranium does not have a peak like oil, partly because spent uranium fuel in the form of U-238 can be reprocessed in a breeder reactor to add one neutron, making it PU-239 (plutonium), so it can be reused. In a way, uranium is a reusable fuel. There is plenty of uranium in the world, and most of it is untapped and in Canada and Australia. Uranium is far more abundant than oil in relative terms. First, Uranium does not have a peak like oil, partly because spent uranium fuel in the form of U-238 can be reprocessed in a breeder reactor to add one neutron, making it PU-239 (plutonium), so it can be reused. In a way, uranium is a reusable fuel. There is plenty of uranium in the world, and most of it is untapped and in Canada and Australia.

]]> By: James Tyrer http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-16273 James Tyrer Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:02:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-16273 Your sophistic argument is based on the presumption that if we build more atomic power plants that they will be the same as the existing ones. (e.g. mostly pressurized light water reactors). That would be a very foolish thing to do. The idea of burying the spent fuel rods in Yucca Mountain is also a foolish idea. Remember that those spent fuel rods are over 90% U238 and that is one of the main disadvantages of PLW reactors. IAC, those spent fuel rods should not be buried, they should be reprocessed and we just need to store them somewhere till it is economically practical to do it. All reactors to be built should be new designs. And, new designs don't generate a large mass of "waste" material. Some of them don't even run on Uranium (a thermal breeder runs on Thorium). But you do have a valid point about the number we would need to build. But, this point doesn't apply just to atomic power plants. It applies to any and all new power plants -- can we build solar or wind plants that fast? Can we build SynFuel plants that fast? No matter what you are talking about building a lot of them is a real problem. Your sophistic argument is based on the presumption that if we build more atomic power plants that they will be the same as the existing ones. (e.g. mostly pressurized light water reactors). That would be a very foolish thing to do.

The idea of burying the spent fuel rods in Yucca Mountain is also a foolish idea. Remember that those spent fuel rods are over 90% U238 and that is one of the main disadvantages of PLW reactors.

IAC, those spent fuel rods should not be buried, they should be reprocessed and we just need to store them somewhere till it is economically practical to do it.

All reactors to be built should be new designs. And, new designs don’t generate a large mass of “waste” material. Some of them don’t even run on Uranium (a thermal breeder runs on Thorium).

But you do have a valid point about the number we would need to build. But, this point doesn’t apply just to atomic power plants. It applies to any and all new power plants — can we build solar or wind plants that fast? Can we build SynFuel plants that fast? No matter what you are talking about building a lot of them is a real problem.

]]> By: Alex http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14466 Alex Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:25:58 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14466 Are we still living in the early 70's and the china syndome fear? Let's not fear the future but embrace it . Nuclear is the best way to meet our continuing addiction to cheap energy, and is required to keep our economy strong. I don't understand these reactionary views to the rest of the world's aggresive pursuit of nuclear energy. We are living the in the 21st century. Nuclear tecnology has improved greatly, both in terms of safety and reusing plutonium rods. Why let the french engineers beat this country in having technology leadership in this field? Do we have to lose yet another high tech industry to foreigners? Let's address concerns and move forward. Have no fear of atomic energy, for none of us can stop the time. Are we still living in the early 70’s and the china syndome fear? Let’s not fear the future but embrace it . Nuclear is the best way to meet our continuing addiction to cheap energy, and is required to keep our economy strong. I don’t understand these reactionary views to the rest of the world’s aggresive pursuit of nuclear energy. We are living the in the 21st century. Nuclear tecnology has improved greatly, both in terms of safety and reusing plutonium rods. Why let the french engineers beat this country in having technology leadership in this field? Do we have to lose yet another high tech industry to foreigners? Let’s address concerns and move forward. Have no fear of atomic energy, for none of us can stop the time.

]]> By: Ken http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14444 Ken Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:11:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14444 Kirk or Charles, I've been meaning to ask you for a few months now if it would be possible to add actinide waste from other reactors to LFTR fuel for disposal purposes. Also, although I agree with you in principle that a MSR design is superior, is there a practical reason why the Radkowsky design is not a sensible alternative for the current reactor fleet for the introduction of thorium into the fuel supply? Kirk or Charles, I’ve been meaning to ask you for a few months now if it would be possible to add actinide waste from other reactors to LFTR fuel for disposal purposes. Also, although I agree with you in principle that a MSR design is superior, is there a practical reason why the Radkowsky design is not a sensible alternative for the current reactor fleet for the introduction of thorium into the fuel supply?

]]> By: puttputt http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14441 puttputt Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:58:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14441 McCAIN IS INSANE! DON'T LET THIS GUY NEAR THE BUTTON! McCAIN IS INSANE! DON’T LET THIS GUY NEAR THE BUTTON!

]]> By: Uncle B http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14246 Uncle B Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:18:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-14246 McCain = 19th century groupthink (ignorant of the facts). Obama/Clinton/Clinton triumvirate = 21st Century Progress. McCain = 19th century groupthink (ignorant of the facts). Obama/Clinton/Clinton triumvirate = 21st Century Progress.

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-13547 paulm Wed, 28 May 2008 05:19:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/#comment-13547 nuclear: - who pays for clean up when the economy blow? (which it is probably going to do) - how do we move all those plant at sea level when it starts going up? (which it is going to) - what happens when we start to take all those unsafe short cuts/options to keep them running past their sell by date? (which we will) This is one dark horse on the horizon for us all! nuclear:
- who pays for clean up when the economy blow? (which it is probably going to do)
- how do we move all those plant at sea level when it starts going up? (which it is going to)
- what happens when we start to take all those unsafe short cuts/options to keep them running past their sell by date? (which we will)

This is one dark horse on the horizon for us all!

]]>