Metafilter Grapples with Nuclear Energy

Using a two-part feature in LA Weekly (Part I, II) as a departure point, members of the Metafilter online community are now debating the merits of new nuclear build.

And it looks like nuclear is getting a fair hearing. Some comments:

Nuclear power has been terribly demonized, but environmentalists should love it. It does almost no damage to the environment at all, unlike fossil fuels, which appear likely to change the climate on Earth and wipe out thousands (millions?) of species...

Yeah, I've never understood why environmentalists are opposed to Nuclear power. it's the only possible energy system we could use that doesn't cause much pollution.

It seems more like irrational fear then anything else...

We will have an energy crisis if we don't find some way of replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear power seems like the logical step...

Nuclear is, alas, our only hope of keeping our society at the level it is at. We, quite simply, cannot continue to burn other fuels at the levels we are on and not make the planet uninhabitable...Nuclear is the only tech we have now that 1) can generate the loads we need 2) without destroying the biosphere and 3) without taking up huge fractions of land to support it...

Be sure to read the feature by Judith Lewis that started the debate (Part I, II).

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

BadTux said…

The reason left-looney environmentalists don't like nuclear power has nothing to do with pollution, and everything to do with the fact that it's that wicked "technology" stuff that they want to do away with so that people can get "back to nature".

For another batch of left-looneys with similar ideas, see the Khmer Rouge, who forced most of Cambodia "back to nature" -- and ended up starving a quarter of their population to death because without modern civilization, you just can't raise enough food to feed the current population.

- Badtux the Glow-in-the-dark Penguin

November 14, 2005 at 1:47 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog