Skip to main content

Another Democrat for Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Nashville in the 21st Century is reprinting excerpts from Rep. Harold Ford's (D-TN) book, Tomorrow's Patriots. The following passage comes from Chapter 3, which deals with energy policy:
Finally, it is past time for us to recognize our need to develop safe and effective use of nuclear energy. France relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its electricity. Sweden and Korea each use nuclear energy to generate over 40 percent of their electricity. Yet here in America, we have not built a nuclear generator in over 30 years. This must change. Scientists at Oak Ridge have joined researchers across the globe as part of the ITER Project to develop the next generation of nuclear power – clean, safe and emission-free fusion power. While this kind of energy is still decades away from commercial availability, it will be a big part of our future.
This seems to be happening more frequently. Credit Instapundit with the link.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Erich J. Knight said…
I wish a few in politics would be interested in looking at these energy technologies:

Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts
October 31, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Proton-11Boron is quite an old idea. It was looked at very early on in the development of the H-bomb. It's periodically reviewed in different concepts. Unfortunately, there are many concerns that hydrogenous plasmas that make this one very difficult, namely a lot of radiative energy loss.

The estimate of tens of millions is almostly certainly off by many orders of magnitude. People a lot smarter than Vincent Page have been wrong on fusion so many times before. This doesn't make him wrong, but fusion is not easy at all. I'm skeptical whenever I see a very optimistic estimate for fusion.

p-11B is, for a lot of reasons, very tricky compared to DT. The engineering side might be a lot easier, but the actual physics side of getting it to a p-11B burn is a LOT more difficult.
October 31, 2006 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said…
While I don't think you'll find anybody here who objects to the idea of doing research into alternative energy approaches, planning sensible responses to our medium-term (by which I mean the next couple of decades) energy needs around speculative ideas (and *any* commercial fusion power proposal is speculative, even if the physics are sound) is an extremely risky approach.

Nuclear fission is the only zero-emission (well, practically so) drop-in replacement for coal baseload stations available right now.
October 31, 2006 at 7:51 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more