Skip to main content

Penn. Representative Has Some Questions About Nuclear Energy

Over at Daily Kos, Pennsylvania State Representative Mark Cohen is asking some questions about nuclear energy. Though he's a long-time opponent going back to the days of Three Mile Island, he's got some questions about where the industry stands now:
The questions now are: Is Nuclear Power safe enough to be expanded? Has the technology and training of nuclear power workers been so improved that there are no longer threatening problems of human incompetence? Is Yucca Mountain an achieveable destination for nuclear waste? Can waste be reliably transferred to Yucca Mountain in Nevada without dangerous risks to the public health? Are there still problems of escessive water use by nuclear power plants? How many of the problems of nuclear safety widely discussed in the late '70's and early 80's have been eradicated? Is expanded nuclear capacity a risky target for terrorists, or merely a manageable problem?

And what about cost problems associated with safety? Are the costs of nuclear safety now manageable so that it can be achieved without raising prices sky high in the long run?
It would be great if our readers could stop by and add their two cents. All I ask is that you be respectful. That's especially so in this particular case, where I'm actually encouraged by the tenor of the debate that's been sparked by Cohen's post.

As I've said before, nuclear energy isn't a Left/Right issue anymore, and many of the comments over at Daily Kos seem to support that contention. Even better, this is only one in what has become a series of posts where nuclear energy has shown more support than many might expect. Click here, here and here to see more of what I'm talking about.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Kirk Sorensen said…
If by "nuclear" they mean conventional pressurized water reactors fueled by low-enrichment uranium in a once-through fuel cycle, then we don't have many changes to report to the "listening left". LWRs still require the conventional levels of capital investment per megawatt, they still produce electricity at about 35% efficiency, and they still discharge about the same amount of high-level waste per megawatt hour.

There have been substantial improvements in plant capacity factor and radiation release (which was already small to begin with). Also "passive safety" has gained greater visibility in projects like AP-1000, ABWR, and so forth.

But "nuclear" aka LWRs haven't changed much since TMI-2. If they didn't like it then, maybe global warming will make them like it better now. Maybe not.
robert merkel said…
But you also have 20-25 more years of evidence that:
a) that nuclear plants aren't going to blow up every few days.
and:
b) The more apocalyptic claims about the damage wreaked by Chernobyl have turned out to be gross exaggerations.

There's also much greater awareness of the damage (and not only global warming) wreaked by the alternatives, particularly coal, and it's gradually dawning on some that the alternatives favoured by the greens (solar, wind and gas) have substantial issues of their own.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…