Comments on: House GOP proposes 25% national energy tax, recycles Cheney energy plan

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:24:59 +0000

I differ with Joe in that I think nuclear fission power plants have a place in America’s energy future. But not existing plant designs: they use a “once-through” fuel cycle and hence are the most wasteful of fuel, requiring continuous mining, enrichment and transport of uranium as well as fabrication of the fresh fuel assemblies — all of which add to CO2 emissions. Also, the two plants currently under construction are following the too-familiar track to schedule stretchouts and budget overruns. I’d like to see more funding for advanced (generation-IV) reactor development in the U.S. But it is clear that such plants cannot go commercial much before 2030.

The GOP energy plan does not even mention Gen-IV reactor designs (or at least the summaries don’t.) It calls for 100 new plants of existing design, which will essentially double the spent fuel volume. It proposes to deal with this by reopening and expanding Yucca Mountain (”without political interference” — so much for states’ rights.) Joe is right about this: the GOP plan would bestow upon us a fresh helping of all the problems attendant to commercial nuclear power plants from the beginning of the industry (except, arguably, the old AEC.) But I think some increase in funding for advanced reactor development would pay off in the long run.

By: David

David — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:11:48 +0000

Yes, nuclear is better than coal. I don’t know the exact figures on CO2 emissions of nuclear energy throughout the process, but I am still concerned about the mining.

If we have to choose between coal and nuclear, I’d always choose nuclear. However, solar energy is more economically sound, and a large amount could be produced by individuals if a feed-in tariff were enacted.

Even ignoring nuclear energy, the plan’s support of coal and oil is a problem.

By: woolie

woolie — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:50:04 +0000

There are alot of tired arguments here, it makes me wonder how serious people are about GHG reduction. Yes, the GOP is corrupt and lies on every topic imaginable (e.g. the climate denialism in their “plan”), so it’s frustrating to have them pushing nuclear, as they aren’t exactly credible. But from a dispassionate, technical perspective, the merits of nuclear expansion are hard to ignore w.r.t. GHG.

The waste isn’t really an issue. It’s safely stored and monitored in secure, above ground dry-cask storage sites. If it’s really an issue, it can be reprocessed, or burned in advanced reactors. If U-235 supply becomes a major issue in the future, there are many fission alternatives to the once-through LWR fuel cycle that could run on alternative fuels basically forever. The water supply is also easily solved — it’s only used as a coolant, and is easily recycled, or otherwise mitigated with cooling towers, or we could use air- or gas-cooled designs.

Sticking with credible sources, it’s generally agreed that LWR total CO2 production (including fuel cycle) is competitive with wind. After all, wind turbines use comparable (or greater, if capacity factor is taken into account) amounts of steel and concrete than LWRs.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:57:22 +0000

>Nuclear power is not low-GHG.

Please explain this. It is at least an 80% reduction over coal. And I would think that a site that uses the word ‘progress’ would applaud having the party of obstruction willing to spend hundreds of billions to reduce electricity production carbon emissions by such a substantial amount.

By: David

David — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:37:12 +0000

Nuclear power is not low-GHG. While it is arguably better than coal, it is still not “clean.” It is also not economically sound.

One thing I find funny, though is that the GOP says that Waxman-Markey is an energy tax, and now we’re saying the same thing about the AES.

By: Col

Col — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:45:29 +0000

Side one of Republican mouth: we need small government which doesn’t pick technological winners.

Side two of Republican mouth: we need to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars on one particular technology.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:30:40 +0000

Building 3000 nuclear plants only produces about 200MTCE.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:39:33 +0000

On the one hand people are saying the planet is doomed unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control. On the other hand, those same people are against low greenhouse gas nuclear power. I thought the point was to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions?

By: David

David — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:34:15 +0000

It’s also important to remember that nuclear energy is not clean. While the actual energy production does not emit GHGs, every other step in the process (mining, transportation, etc.) is highly polluting. And there’s always the problem of nuclear waste.

The support of nukes is enough to discourage me from supporting the Republican energy plan.

By: Zeez

Zeez — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:06:28 +0000

Not only can we not find places to store the spent fuel from these reactors, the amount of fresh water consumed by the reactors would further deplete our rivers and supplies of fresh water. Given the droughts that we’re already experiencing in this country, we can’t afford to use our fresh water resources this way, especially as our climate continues to change. One reactor can take 4-6 billion gallons of water each year, and I’m going to guess that we won’t be able to sustain 100 more of them in this country without some serious consequence.