Skip to main content

Captain Ed and Nuclear Power

The influential blogger at Captain'’s Quarters, Ed Morrissey, posted a very strong endorsement for nuclear power as a way to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

He called for consideration of making most or all of our electricity from nuclear power. The problem is that today, more nuclear power plants will NOT reduce importation of petroleum. We'’ve already displaced oil as a fuel for electricity with our first big nuclear build back in the 70’s and early 80’s. In 1970, almost 35% of US electricity was fueled by oil. Today, it's down to 3%.

The real problem lies with the prospective fuel for generators --– imported liquefied natural gas. As domestic demand increases and North American supplies decline, energy planners and marketers are looking more and more to new LNG terminals to provide the gas to run combined cycle combustion gas turbine plants. Are we adding a NEW addiction to our old bad habit? Nuclear power could and should prevent that.

Morrissey goes on to advocate hydrogen fuel cells for autos and other independent uses. He rightly identifies the problem as the source of hydrogen.

Ed thinks that an "Moon shot"” program can get us off foreign oil and "“make it happen within the next ten to fifteen years."”

Well, as a nuclear engineer, I can feel the love, but it ain't gonna happen. The FIRST new nuke to make electricity is scheduled to come on line in 2015. As some of the commenters note, production of hydrogen for fuel will require nuclear power. The current government plan is first commercial-scale nuclear hydrogen production in 2019. Lab-scale demonstration of the thermo-chemical reaction is not planned until 2008 and that'’s using non-nuclear heat.

Still, as a public discussion of energy policy issues, it is way above what passes for public discourse in the main stream media.

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

Comments

David Bradish said…
Many may not know this and I didn't up until a couple of weeks ago but the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona is already contributing a great portion of electricity to the production of hydrogen for cars. Check out APS' Hydrogen Park which has been around since 2002. DOE and APS are conducting a study on the costs of the program due to be released next spring.

Hydrogen cars may be coming around a lot sooner then we think.
robert merkel said…
I'll leave the broader argument on the merits of Morrissey's ideas to others; I'd just like to address the debate on how fast the world can transition over to a sounder energy mix.

Everybody always overestimates what they can achieve in the short term, and underestimates what they can achieve in the long term. But if the USA (and other countries) get the right policy settings now, in 15-20 years pretty massive changes can be achieved. But that clock only starts when the right policies are set.
GRLCowan said…
"Hydrogen cars may be coming around a lot sooner then we think" -- ironically true. They were around 30 years ago.

Nuclear production of hydrogen will no doubt be a practical way of making automobile fuel, but only when it is promptly turned into nuclear gasoline by reaction with CO2.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, nukemobile fan
Burn boron in pure oxygen for car power

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

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…