Skip to main content

A Texas Sized Question on Energy and the Environment

By Eric McErlain
With utilities in Texas about to undertake massive new build of coal-fired power plants, some folks in the state are giving nuclear energy a second look:
Broadly speaking, the environmental community remains opposed to the construction and operation of nuclear plants. Environmentalists say uranium mining can pollute groundwater, and they fear the possibility of a catastrophic accident. They also are dissatisfied with the disposal methods for radioactive waste.

But as the effort to stop global climate change leapfrogs to the top of most environmentalists' agenda, some say they are re-examining their opposition to the plants, which emit little in the way of greenhouse gases.

"We're looking at it again," said Jim Marston, who heads the Austin office of Environmental Defense.
As we've already reported, TXU is thinking the same thing.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's a misperception (or misrepresentation) of scale that allows arguments on uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal any serious consideration. These are small-scale issues. The quantities involved are tiny relative to coal mining (huge) and even to gas/oil extraction (still fairly big), even leaving aside the fossils' pollution output.
November 7, 2006 at 3:11 PM
giordano bruno said…
Lets leave the decision to hard-headed men, not greenies. Lets insist that nuclear power stations pay normal insurance, including full insurance for worst case events.
If nuclear is cost-effective with normal insurance, then we can start talking about police-states

Coal wastes dont need guards with machineguns for (10 half lives?) 270,000 years.
November 7, 2006 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said…
US nuclear power plants purchase as much insurance as they can, then enter an agreement to cross-insure across the industry. They have far more depth of insurance than say a large dam operator. The Price-Anderson requirements are no subsidy.

Nuclear wastes don't need huge security once they're in the ground. Coal wastes however have a track record of killing people.
November 8, 2006 at 1:33 AM
Anonymous said…
Stating that spent nuclear fuel "need guards with machineguns for (10 half lives?) 270,000 years." shows a total lack of understanding and or interest in the spent fuel issue.

After the repository is full it is sealed and requires no guarding or maintenance what so ever, no more than uranium ore deep down in the ground require guards.

If you are interested in learning something about dealing with spent fuel, read this article:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/8/13/184016/739
November 8, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said…
giordano,

The nuclear industry can pay for a worst-case scenario (Three Mile Island) a year, not that it will ever be necessary.

No we don't need machine guns to guard coal emissions because we simply allow the waste to go into the air, killing 25,000 people a year in the U.S. alone. Or for a more concrete example, take a look at China, which loses 5000 coal miners in a good year, so to speak.

By the way, the 270,000 year number is just meaningless.
November 8, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more