Nuclear power unlikely alternative in Northwest, analyst says

[bananas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17151383/

Nuclear power unlikely alternative in Northwest, analyst says

By WILLIAM McCALL
Updated: 9:42 a.m. PT Feb 14, 2007

PORTLAND, Ore. - Nuclear power is unlikely to expand in the Pacific Northwest any time soon, an analyst who reviewed the costs for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council said.

<snip>

Laughter, however, broke out when Harding pointed out the cheapest way to build a nuclear power plant would be spreading out the cost with a public subsidy _ similar to what led to the largest municipal bond default in national history with the collapse of the former Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear project in the 1980s.

Only one plant survived among the five planned for the project. And the only other nuclear plant in the Northwest, the Trojan plant in Oregon, was closed in the 1990s by Portland General Electric after the utility decided it was too costly to repair cracks in steam tubes.

One of the last symbols of nuclear power in the region, the Trojan cooling tower visible from Interstate 5 along the Columbia River, was demolished last May.

<snip>

[madokie]

1. I know fossil fuels aren't the answer to our energy problems

but for the life of me I can't get on the nuclear bandwagon. I personally think with some leadership from the executive and legislative branches of our government we can solve the problem without using either of these technologies.

[NNadir]

2. Technology has no bearing on climate change.

The proper way to deal with climate change is not to get on any kind of bandwagon. You don't need to compare the relative risks of dumping billions of tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere. All you need to do is to stomp your feet, pray really hard, and blame China for all of your problems.

If someone says "nuclear" the appropriate response is to insist that only nuclear energy be risk free, mostly because it starts with an "N."

When the Trojan nuclear plant was shut, it was replaced by burning more fossil fuels, just like every nuclear plant that is shut is replaced by fossil fuels.

[madokie]

3. as I guess thats where the tech lies at the present,

we can do better than either fossil or nuclear. I notice you think that nuclear is the answer and I'm fine with that but I don't agree with that so just telling me how bad coal is and how good nuclear is isn't going to change my mind at all. I know burning is not the answer, whether it be fossil fuel or nuclear energy. I don't stomp my feet nor do I pray and I sure don't blame anyone else for anything. sorry.

If there were a solution to the long term storage of spent nuclear fuel rods then maybe I could give it some consideration. So far I haven't read about it if there is.

[NNadir]

4. If you had a long term storage for coal waste, maybe I'd think you were

kidding yourself. I wouldn't believe you of course, because you would be lying.

It is a gross misreprentation on the level of asserting creationism to say that it is irrelevant to point out the cost of coal. The external cost of coal is greater than the external cost of nuclear by an order of magnitude. There is not one, zero, zilch, nada coal plants that have ever been replaced by something "safer" than nuclear. In fact nuclear power is not safe because no form of energy is safe. Nuclear is just safer than everything else. Sweeping that fact under the rug is simply a demand to sacrifice lives for ignorance.

Let's get serious, neither you nor anyone else who pretends that so called "nuclear waste" is the only energy waste problem can actually produce one case, not even one, of a person injured by spent nuclear fuel. Can you? Can you show of one instance, just one, in this country where the storage of spent nuclear fuel has failed.

I ask this question frequently, and all I get for it is hemming and hawing.


Instead you just pretend that "we can do better than fossil or nuclear." This is nonsense, pure nonsense of the most pathetic kind. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that is safer than nuclear power. If there were a "safer" alternative, it would have been produced by now but in fact the dangerous fossil fuel waste continues to accumulate in our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

I do blame people for making nonsensical assertions that so called "nuclear waste" is a problem. Other than hydroelectric - it is the only exajoule scale form of energy in this country that has a form of "waste" that has not killed anyone. (On the other hand hydroelectric accidents kill on a large scale and fairly regularly. In fact the worst energy disaster in history was a hydroelectric accident.)


Some things would come close to being safe as nuclear power - if they didn't kill by generating mindless complacency. I have not met one, one "nuclear is dangerous" poseur who has a plan for eliminating fossil fuels, not one.

There is no alternative to nuclear power, much less a safe alternative to nuclear power. Fifty years of pretending otherwise has only led to the burning of more fossil fuels.

[depakid]

5. Because of the WPPSS debacle, funding will be hard to come by

That's just the reality here in the NorthWest. Investors are going to be gun shy, and it'll take a very compelling economic case to persuade them.

Seems to me, that's the gist of the article.

[hogwyld]

6. Actually, the best alternative

Is finding a way to entice or force people to use less energy. When the actual costs to produce energy are computed, people will be forced to set their thermostats at 65 degrees, switch to CFL's, and adopting other draconian conservation methods. Conservation is the key, not more power plants.