Skip to main content

A Texas Sized Question on Energy and the Environment

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.
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.
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.
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
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.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

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