Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Safe Nuclear Power: Leave it in the Earth!

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

25 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 25
March 21, 2011
Hi:

Business rewards those processes that make the most money all along the process chain. Centralized solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave etc. only make money for those who make the original equipment and those selling the power. The fuel is free. Reoccurring incoming is a hallmark for a desirable business model. If you think about it, all the chosen energy forms in heavy capitalized countries are fuel based. Entities make money on the equipment to "mine/drill" the fuel, process the fuel, selling the fuel, and, they have you hooked. If the customer wants the energy they have to buy the fuel which keeps all those money making entities in play. Renewable energies, especially point of use generation installs, are very undesirable from a business perspective because the only ones making the money are the OEM's!!, and there is no reoccurring element!!
As one would expect in a currency based world, we made our choices based on currency, not what was going to be the best for our species.
Allot of the professed statements about the way we have done things, that are excused under the heading of, "we didn't know" is bull _hit. We knew. We just wanted to make the money instead.... and if you doubt this as being a valid statement, look at the world from a 2011 perspective. We know all the consequences and we are still lying and misrepresenting all for profit. Look at the responders on just this site, an RE site. How many consistently use money as the reason to go down a given road, even when the forsaken road is benign compared to the one they promote. For people like this, currency is only overridden when the consequences become personal to them. Tragedy must hit "home". Their home. Their family.

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
2 of 25
Anonymous
March 22, 2011
Bill writes in comment #1:
"If you think about it, all the chosen energy forms in heavy capitalized countries are fuel based."

Apparently he forgot about hydroelectric generation when he drafted this dogmatic post....

Bill also writes in comment #1:
"How many consistently use money as the reason to go down a given road, even when the forsaken road is benign compared to the one they promote."

This is the typical Fitch rant against using economics to inform decision making. Apparently he believes in wishful thinking as an alternative.

Steven
Comment
3 of 25
March 22, 2011
Hi:

Don't you love the word rant. Its an interesting word. It is a wonderful way to embed an emotional attack, while asking a question and promoting your narrow view.
It sort of reminds me though of the word crazy. It is a question of perspective. For instance, if you are poor and crazy, then you are just plain crazy. However, if you are wealthy and crazy, then you are eccentric. The later sounds so much better doesn't it. But I think even crazy people, rich or poor, know that the highest plateau for human decision making is fully occupied with human happiness and well being for ALL, not currency.
How does that saying go, "the currency made me do it", no wait, that was the devil, my mistake...

.....Bill
Comment
4 of 25
March 22, 2011
To anon (comment 2) I was unable to find anything on p4 of your excellent eere link about spending in 2007. Its an interesting link though, and it shows the great work that eere has done to develop geothermal. The politics at the top has often worked against the excellent efforts at the worker level. Here is a quote from the 2007 DOE budget document:

"The Geothermal Technologies program will be closed out in FY 2007 (-$23.1 million).
While geothermal energy remains an important regional contributor to energy needs of the nation, current EERE priorities are focused on technology development with broadly applicable and more readily accelerated public benefits."
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/07budget/Content/Highlights/Highlights.pdf

I think the Senate may have forced some money into the program, ignoring the budget. My point is that we should have had a Manhattin Project crash program in response to the MIT study. Ordering a study, then ignoring its findings is nothing to be proud of.
Comment
5 of 25
March 23, 2011
Hi:

"...A geothermal plant would not be a radiation problem..."
"...The post itself is just green screaming - trying to set an agenda."

Oh hell, what's a little radiation between friends... no big deal..
and besides, as long as the people making the big money on these environmentally damaging energy sources (coal, NG, Nuclear, oil) can live away from the worst results and send there kids to private schools and protect their own homes in whatever way if needed, all is fine.. screw everybody else, right Russ..??..

.....Bill
Comment
6 of 25
March 23, 2011
This is an article more people should read. Reminds me of Noah in the Bible telling others about preparation. Indeed the Philippines gets 27 % of electricity from geothermal source and a few days ago the proponents for completion of the Bataan Nuclear Power made a 180 degree turnaround thereby completely abandoning the project. Somebody suggested refurbishing it to be a tourist spot.
Comment
7 of 25
March 23, 2011
russ: Why should geothermal power be a bit player? It's already 26% of the power in two countries. EGS and better drilling technologies could make it economical virtually everywhere. We could develop EGS if we weren't wasting our DOE research budget on crash programs to save nuclear and coal. Open up your mind. Not all greenies are crazy.
No image available
Comment
8 of 25
Anonymous
March 23, 2011
tblakeslee writes in comment #11: "Why should geothermal power be a bit player? It's already 26% of the power in two countries. EGS and better drilling technologies could make it economical virtually everywhere."

Enhanced geothermal technologies are potentially quite promising and deserve consistent funding (note the distinction between this and a "Manhattan project," i.e., a pell mell rush--something that is inefficient and often ineffective). However, we should realize that current research in this area has produced limited results and that even a major breakthrough likely will not make the technology viable everywhere. It is premature to abandon an established technology such as nuclear power before other speculative efforts pan out. Attempting to defund established development efforts is a poor way to achieve funding for promising new ones. Blakeslee's article would have been much more effective if he had confined himself to discussing the virtues of geothermal power rather than bemoaning the limitations of nuclear reactors.
Steven
Comment
9 of 25
March 23, 2011
" a pell mell rush--something that is inefficient and often ineffective"
That perfectly fits what actually happened with "clean coal" and the "nuclear renaissance" Too bad all those billions were wasted due to political clout when there were much better solutions to the problem that were forced to rely on Google for funding.
Comment
10 of 25
March 23, 2011
To whoever wrote "It is premature to abandon an established technology such as nuclear power before other speculative efforts pan out." Well it is never to late to do the right thing. And while EGS may not be enough, the combination of "proven" existing technologies can certainly displace nuclear.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

The point is that we need each and every single low impact clean technology. We also need to develop massively large scale off-shore wind, kinetic hydro, Pumped Hydro and Compressed Air Storage (CAES) Technology, Smart Grid, PV, CSP, CPV, Algea oil and bioenergy from waste, cogeneration, developing a quick and extensive network of electric vehicles which can also serve for energy storage. There are so many technologies that do exist and work. But the problem is that they need the public funding which is handed out for nukes and dirty fuels.
No image available
Comment
11 of 25
Anonymous
March 23, 2011
Tom Blakeslee writes in comment #13: "That perfectly fits what actually happened with "clean coal" and the "nuclear renaissance" Too bad all those billions were wasted due to political clout when there were much better solutions to the problem that were forced to rely on Google for funding."

"Clean coal" as you denote carbon sequestration technologies managed to get large funding because its advocates spent their time portraying it as a potentially important step to mitigating climate change (as it may well be) rather than attacking funding of competing technologies. I don't know why so many in the renewable energy community invest so much of their time trying to tear down their competitors--if you have superior technology the fastest path to victory is merely to outcompete the alternatives. Edison did not waste a lot of time complaining about the disadvantages of candles....

Steven
No image available
Comment
12 of 25
Anonymous
March 23, 2011
Frederic writes in comment #14:
"Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years."

This is true only because of the use of hydro power and wood--technologies that pre-dated nuclear power. The newer technologies such as wind and solar still contribute only a small percentage to global electricity generation. It would be unfortunate if the growth in market share of renewables occurs at the expense of relatively safe and clean technologies such as nuclear power and leave coal fired generation as the dominant source of electricity.

He also writes: "But the problem is that they need the public funding which is handed out for nukes and dirty fuels."

Subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power are quite modest and it is a serious mistake to believe that if only those funds could be redistributed renewables would flourish. Even if such a redistribution was achievable (it isn't) this would have only a tiny effect on market share for renewables.
Steven
Comment
13 of 25
March 24, 2011
Steven: The "modest" subsidy for nuclear is that we the people, under the Price-Anderson act, promise to pay trillions of dollars in damages if a major nuclear accident happens. Without this guarantee, the industry would be dead. Politicians love to spend the future generation's money. Decommissioning nuclear plants in the UK is turning into a nightmare, costing almost a billion dollars per plant.
The DOE has misspent billions on flogging the nuclear dead horse. Future generations will curse us for our shortsightedness.
No image available
Comment
14 of 25
Anonymous
March 24, 2011
Tom:
It is true that without Price-Anderson the nuclear power industry would be unable to be properly insured. Consequently, we would have lots of additional coal fired power plants spewing CO2, mercury, soot, etc. into the atmosphere (there is no other viable alternative capable of replacing that much generation yet). I am perplexed by why you think that would be better....

The chances of a major nuclear accident in the US are very very low and the next generation of plants would reduce those odds ever further; Price-Anderson has not cost us a dime yet and probably never will. Furthermore, much of the expenditures made by the DOE are for R&D or cleanup related to our nuclear arsenal--an issue that should now be blamed on the electrical generation industry.

If we are extremely fortunate, one day enhanced geothermal techniques will make further generations of nuclear power plants unnecessary. However, that day is a long way off; the research alone could easily take a decade and drilling all the sites (both drilling equipment and trained crews are in short supply) needed to displace a large fraction of our electricity generation is a vast undertaking (and I'd much rather see coal phased out before nuclear power).

I rather expect that you are right about one thing--future generations probably will curse us for our shortsightedness. We don't have anything resembling a strategic plan to address climate change and instead of concentrating on formulating such a plan we are wasting a lot of effort squabbling over trivially small subsidies for fossil fuels and trying to scuttle carbon-free nuclear power.
Steven
Comment
15 of 25
March 24, 2011
Thank you for this article. I didn't know geothermal energy could be that efficient. I am currently researching on solar thermal systems but the geothermal system seems quite interesting. Lately, it seems to be making a buzz. Newcastle and Durham Universities in the UK have teamed up to drill a 2000m hole and hope to heat up water for domestic use. That will save the earth from the down sides of the coal and nuclear energy.
Comment
16 of 25
March 24, 2011
Around the year 2000, I took a journey to the NorthWest USA (Montana especially). I stayed at some of the small motels and "resorts" where geothermal was used in hot tubs, and even one where several Olympic sized swimming pools were heated completely geothermally. It was a very enjoyable, "warming" way to see firsthand how geothermal could play a much bigger role in the future. In addition, these motels/spas etc. had all been around for decades -- there was nothing new about them.

One surprise though was that no one had taken the next logical step of using this practically free heat to warm their lodgings! When you consider that Montana law requires that the hot-tub water be limited to 106 degree Farhenheit, and that the owners/operators had to mix the geothermal water with cooler water to stay within these legal parameters, you can see how much more potential there is -- and how it is being wasted currently.

The level of efficiency from heating with geothermal would be even greater, of course, if radiant floor heating was used (radiant flooring requires only 90-100 degrees of heat, whereas most radiator systems - or other heat transfer methods - require around 180 degrees).

I have to agree with Thomas Blakeslee! If only the funds that went into (and continue to flow into) nuclear, "clean" coal etc. were being channeled into geothermal!
Comment
17 of 25
March 24, 2011
Hi J:

Our clean future can be secured by using ALL the RE options, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, river, etc.. These centralized and decentralized installations coupled with an advanced grid design, load/gen balancing, aggressive energy conservation which actually results in greater comfort not less, and other tech advances that will occur along the way, will produce the desired result. Too often people get caught in the conventional's promoted trap of thinking singularly about a solution.
The sad part is that even when we eventually get our act together (being optimistic) and get rid of Nuclear and all the coal, oil, NG etc., fuel based ways of producing energy, we will be left with the daunting task of dealing with the thousands of tones of spent fuel from our Nuclear folly that is currently stored at the sites all over the country.
This above all else will be a task not appreciated by future generations. I only hope that they will not have to deal with this under a new earth climate that is far less friendly to organic life.

.....Bill
No image available
Comment
18 of 25
Anonymous
March 29, 2011
The anonymous author of comment #22 writes: "That's because candles weren't his competitor. Tesla/Westinghouse's AC was, so instead, Edison electrocuted an elephant using AC in a media campaign. But Tesla/Westinghouse won, and we use AC instead of Edison's DC to our homes."

The electric bulb was invented about 1879 and the elephant electrocution occurred on 1903--long after the candle suppliers were on the run. Edison clearly understood that economic forces were the way forward for the light bulb as he quote shows: "We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles."

His stunts electrocuting animals were attempts to compete against a SUPERIOR technology (AC); these also prove my point: when he had superior technology he developed that and ignored his competitors, when his competitors had superior technology he attacked them directly.
Steven
Comment
19 of 25
March 29, 2011
Hey Bill! (william-fitch-22587)

You are so right, of course! I didn't mean to imply that only geothermal was the ANSWER (in big, bold capital letters). I totally agree with your comments, such as this one:

" . . . often people get caught in the conventional's promoted trap of thinking singularly about a solution."

I think one of our main problems, besides the truly monumental one you mentioned: doing something with the ever-increasing spent radioactive fuel, is also our inherited legacy of energy-inefficient buildings. One can accomplish a lot just by adding solar thermal and photovoltaic panels to a building, but the real challenge is getting structures -- even fairly news ones -- up to a "German" standard of insulation. I'm afraid that will probably take at least a generation or so to truly make a significant impact.

One technology I'm really excited about -- and hope to see much more of -- is the Organic Rankine Cycle powered turbines. Using thermal and some biomass, I think it could be a huge contributor to our baseload electricity production!

Enjoy!
Comment
20 of 25
March 29, 2011
Anonymous (comment 16) writes: [the fact that nuclear contributes less than renewables) is true only because of the use of hydro power and wood--technologies that pre-dated nuclear power.

The fact is that new renewable capacity has exceeded new nuclear for quite a few years (decades). The first order of priority is to stop new nuclear from competing with new renewables (RE) for the next 10 to 20 years. In Canada, nuclear has been handed out ~ $1 billion per year of subsidies, and Oil and Gas about the double of that. That is not insignificant. Considering the total cost of nuclear projects (including externalities - such as but not limited to waste and decommissioning that are conveniently taken into account but charged to tax payers), nuclear is just not economically viable. Proof is, no insurance company will cover all the risk, no bank will finance it without HUGE government interventions. If these government interventions were to come into play at the same magnitude for RE, RE would certainly be competitive. And it makes more sense for governments to provide that level of interventions as it would boost local economies and jobs much more than supporting the fewer mining and nuclear construction jobs.

And in regards to the comment about hydro, well, we have not even tapped into the potential for kinetic hydro, wave and tidal power. We have not tapped into large off-shore projects from oceans or the great lakes (in North America). Each off-shore wind farm has the potential of a nuclear reactor. Off shore wind is much more stable and powerful (look at what the UK is doing). So while traditional hydro may have reached close to its limits, this is not the case for so many forms of renewables that - taken together, certainly can more than offset new nuclear. If the focus is on renewable investments, we will achieve more economies of scale, technological development, and fueling faster & wider adoption of renewables.
No image available
Comment
21 of 25
Anonymous
March 29, 2011
Frederic writes in comment #25: "he first order of priority is to stop new nuclear from competing with new renewables (RE) for the next 10 to 20 years. "

I suppose if you own stock in a coal mine this might be your first priority. If you are concerned about climate change you would want to see nuclear power receive a big push in the next few years so it can help displace some of our coal fired generation. In the short term renewable power cannot expand fast enough to meet all our needs for new generation capacity--especially in locations such as the US south east where wind and geothermal resources are quite poor. Crushing the nuclear power industry would only play into the hands of fossil fuel generation sources and make it nearly impossible to get CO2 emissions under control.

The nuclear power industry receives very modest subsidies on a per unit of energy basis (roughly 1 cent/kWh). Renewable generation already receives much higher subsidies, so Frederic's comments on subsidies are inaccurate. Estimates of costs for new nuclear power plants are high now because these are the first new plants to be considered in many years. If orders were to pick up economies of scale should result in significantly cheaper rates.
Steven
Comment
22 of 25
March 29, 2011
Dear Steven,

It is precicely because I am concerned about climate change that I believe that nuclear is absolutely not the fastest, most economical and logical way to go. Given the appropriate finabcial and regulatory support, renewable energy projects can be commissioned from less than a year to 5 years for some of the largest. Nuclear projects, to be done properly, require much much more than 5 years, probably closer to 10 years.

Your assumption of 1 cent/kWh is based on calculations that can not take into account externalities. I think that the brain of economists that provide us with the numbers must have spent too much time next to leaking nuclear plants. For example, I am sure your 1 cent/kWh does not take into account public funding, public insurance, the massive cost that the Fukushima will impose for Nukes to get to the new level more stringent security levels. The nuclear industry, GE, governments, IAEA and the various lobbies have and continue to lie and deceive about real cost, real radiation levels. Nuclear energy is not only a Russian roulette for populations, it is the most risky energy project in terms of initial cost, periodic costs and decommissioning. And unlike with renewables, you need massive amount of fossil fuel to extract, process and transport the nuclear fuel. You need massive amount of energy intensive concrete to build the facilities, then to clean them up (no need to do that even with Wind Turbines that admittedly require massive amount of steel and/or concrete). Oh, and by the way, what is the real cost of Nuclear in Japan (not just to rebuild the plant.. but Japan's economy). And a plane crashing on a Nuke may not be an issue, but there are no limits to what a very smart group of terrorists could do to a Nuke. There is no budget that would be large enough to cover all possible risks from that. To many possibilities, combinations of attacks at various levels on equipment, and the people that operate these nukes. Too much risk!
No image available
Comment
23 of 25
Anonymous
March 29, 2011
Frederic:

Virtually all the extant US nuclear generation was built in a 20 year period and this now provides about 20% of all our electricity. We could build at least as much again in the next 20 years if we started now in ernest and such a program would almost certainly lead to lower costs. If isn't a major problem that it takes 5-10 years to plan and build a reactor of you are planning to replace a nuclear or coal power plant that is headed for de-commissioning in a similar period. The notion that nuclear power cannot provide a significant amount of new capacity is baseless--the industry has proven capable of doing so in the past and technological improvements will make this even easier in the future.

Abandoning nuclear power won't be a boon for renewable generation--it will merely allow fossil generation (coal and natural gas) to maintain or increase its market share because renewables are not let capable of providing the amount and type of generation needed to displace nuclear power and makes inroads in fossil generation. Consider the US south east, where wind and geothermal resources are very poor. What renewable generation would you replace the regions nuclear generation with?

As Thomas Blakeslee's article suggests enhanced geothermal generation may one day provide baseload power that would readily replace coal and nuclear generation. However, that technology is now now ready for deployment and even if it way, scaling up all the drilling equipment needed will take many years. We should be making a major push in geothermal R&D but we cannot abandon existing technology such as nuclear power when acceptable replacements might not be available for decades. We don't have the luxury of insisting on utopian solutions.
Steven
Comment
24 of 25
March 31, 2011
OK:

all those in favor of geothermal, wind & solar PV must now proceed to purchase a home within 5 miles of such a plant.


All those in favor of new nuclear or even so-called clean coal...

game over in the debate I suspect?
Comment
25 of 25
April 1, 2011
I live about 30 miles from one nuclear and our holiday home is 8 miles from a proposed nuclear. Fortunately coal is about 900 miles away.

I also manufacture and install PV.

My point was that few nuclear and coal proponents will want one as a neighbour : NIMBY syndrome. Sadly the same applies to everything. There's huge opposition to a 300MW wind farm 6 miles from the holiday home, mainly from self proclaimed environmentalists that don't want their holiday mansion views compromised! I think same happened in US with wind in the NE rich beach home areas?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »

Advertise With Us

Black & Veatch Corporation KACO new energy, Inc. Upsolar ClearEnergy Inc. Mannvit Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software Solectria Renewables LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters