Edwards and Nuclear Energy

[DangerDave921]

So I hear John Edwards saying last night that he is against nuclear energy. Just flat out against it. What is that about? Oil is a dead-end solution long term, as well as a short-term problem with the middle east. Solar and wind certainly can't provide the energy we need. Ethanol is just plain stupid. Nuclear is the way we need to go. Look at France, for Pete's sake.

I've never been an Edwards fan, but this comment just drove me farther away.

[itsrobert]

1. Keep living in the 1950's

And we can't get to the Moon, either.

[Ninga]

2. It's about the danger of nuclear waste. It is a huge huge problem. What is your solution to

how nuclear waste is disposed of? Since you are clearly an advocate of nuclear power....you must have thought about solution to the waste issue.

Please share them with us.

[bananas]

3. Solar and wind definitely can - and cheaper than nukes

Right now, you can build wind cheaper and faster than nuclear.
The same will be true of solar within a decade.
"Nuclear Costs Explode" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x129741

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode

Nuclear Costs Explode
By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune
Published: January 15, 2008

Progress Energy Florida is going to have to spend more than originally planned to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County, the utility's top executive said.

The St. Petersburg-based utility won't disclose how much more expensive the project will be until it's presented to state regulators within 90 days. Based on new industry estimates, the revised cost could be two to three times more expensive than the projection Progress issued more than a year ago.

<snip>

FPL, based in Juno Beach, said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made.

<snip>

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

<snip>

[bananas]

4. This months Scientific American - "A Solar Grand Plan"

Nuclear can't come close to this:

"The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x127595

[bananas]

5. Al Gore: "I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273/

<snip>

Grist: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

Grist: Won't, or shouldn't?

Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

<snip>

[Armstead]

6. Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and produces ungodly waste

[Mass]

7. France's program only works because it is a state program and not for profit.

Also, the nuclear waste issue is still not solved.

Also, it takes a long time to build plants, and so counting on them to solve the problem only pushes the solution further down the road.

[bananas]

8. Look at France - the equivalent of 20 Katrinas in 2003

In 2003 and 2006 heat waves, France and other countries had to shut down or reduce power in many reactors - it was too hot for them.
France had workers stand outside hosing down the cooling towers.
Last year, TVA had to shut down a reactor here in the U.S. because of heat and drought.
Just when you need it most, it isn't there.
15,000 deaths in France from the 2003 heat wave - that would be like 5 Katrinas,
except France has about 1/4 the population of the U.S. - it would be more like 20 Katrinas here.
No thank you.


http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22364/story.htm

French Heat-Wave Death Toll 15,000 - Official Report

FRANCE: September 26, 2003

PARIS - France's August heat wave claimed around 15,000 lives, more than previously thought, the Inserm national medical research institute said yesterday in a report commissioned by the government.

The report said there were a total of 56,000 deaths in France in this year's blisteringly hot August - around 15,000 more than in a normal year.

A previous estimate, made by a group of undertakers, had put the heat wave death toll at 13,600.

France was stunned by the initial death toll estimates. President Jacques Chirac admitted shortcomings in the country's prized health system and pledged more cash for emergency services.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0810/p04s01-woeu.html

from the August 10, 2006 edition

Nuclear power's green promise dulled by rising temps
Problems with Europe's nuclear plants have raised worries just as the energy was gaining support.
By Susan Sachs | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

PARIS – Summer is exposing the chinks in Europe's nuclear power networks.

The extended heat wave in July aggravated drought conditions across much of Europe, lowering water levels in the lakes and rivers that many nuclear plants depend on to cool their reactors.

As a result, utility companies in France, Spain, and Germany were forced to take some plants offline and reduce operations at others. Across Western Europe, nuclear plants also had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment.Even with an exemption to environmental rules this summer, the French electric company, Electricité de France (EDF), normally an energy exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market, a way to meet electricity demand.

The troubles of the nuclear industry did not end there. Sweden shut four of its 10 nuclear reactors after a short-circuit cut power at one plant on July 26, raising fears of a dangerous design flaw. One week later, Czech utility officials shut down one of the country's six nuclear reactors because of what they described as a serious mechanical problem that led to the leak of radioactive water.

<snip>


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/tva_shuts_react.php

TVA Shuts Reactors: River Water is Too Hot
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 08.17.07

In the middle of a heat wave, the Tennessee Valley Authority has been forced to shut down a reactor at Browns Ferry. because water drawn from the Tennessee River was exceeding a 90-degree average over 24 hours, amid a blistering heat wave across the Southeast. "We don't believe we've ever shut down a nuclear unit because of river temperature," said John Moulton, spokesman for the Knoxville, Tenn.-based utility. They are buying power elsewhere and was already imposing a surcharge because of lower hydroelectric power production caused by drought conditions.

This was discussed in an earlier post: ""We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around. As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver." Same is true of coal fired plants, and we are getting lots more of those. " ::Houston Chronicle

[Strelnikov_]

9. Nuclear generated energy should probably be maintained at its current level

Currently a little over 100 plants generates ~20% of the energy on the electrical grid.

Even with its high cost, the 'always on' characteristic of nuclear generated energy will be valuable in providing base load for an electric grid fueled by primarily renewable energy sources.

Coal is the energy source that needs to be phased out as quickly as possible.

The primary push, coordinated by a newly formed USEA (US Energy Authority) should be the rapid, widespread development of distributed wind and solar energy sources to form the backbone of a renewable, robust energy system.

Robust in the sense of redundancy, a 1 GW nuke vs 2000 1.5 MW wind turbines.

[Marrah_G]

10. How can we continue to build plants if there is no safe place to store the by-products of them?

To trade one non-environmental practice for another is folly.

[DCKit]

11. Rec'd for the comments.

Great, educated arguments on both sides of the issue.

[DangerDave921]

12. France

I'd never heard about the effect of heat on operating a nuclear facility. Very interesting indeed.