Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
On Monday I posted on the RNC's first TV ad to be released during this presidential campaign. Today, Factcheck.org, the nonpartisan group funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, takes a look. An excerpt from their article, "A False Accusation About Energy"
Comments
Well, I know some of you Republicans might think that's a little naive, but hopefully it's not.
On hands and knees? Not so much.
I LOVE President Bush and I wish he could run again for the Presidency. Partisan? That's you guys who ingratiate yourselves with the left.
Nobody is condemning or critcizing anyone. Pointing out that there is growing support for nuclear energy among Democrats (yes, including the presumptive nominee for president) is not partisan, it's called consensus building.
One would think, anonymous, that, as a supporter of N, you'd welcome all members to the nuclear family.
Check that. I will criticize the use of anonymous handles. It's always more pleasant to have a conversation with people rather than nameless individuals.
I'm kb. Nice to meet you. And you are?
Being a republican is no matter of shame, why don't you just take off your hood and use your real name.. ?
Btw, all this carping "vote for obama is a vote against nuclear" will not work on people with people of above-average level of intelligence (which is what we nuclear bloggers are).
We love facts and arguments.
I think Obama stands for a significant departure from the failed energy policies of the past. Too much attention has been given till now to big energy companies and their short term profits. U235 is no magic pill, and we know that it holds no promise for sustainable energy.
Nuclear can provide sustainable energy only when all the juice is used. Calling all that highly radioactive U238 as waste is blasphemy.
Breeders and MSRs are the way to go. I trust Obama for more research dollars in prototyping this stuff. Republican administration has so far been the enemy of science, just as bad as the catholic church had been during renaissance.
When we speak of the new (nuclear) renaissance, we should do something significantly new and big.
Thank you, I needed a good laugh. Do you write part time for Colin Ferguson?
As for the contention that energy production should be taken off the table as a partisan issue, that's also something that's been part of the dialog at this blog since its inception.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU
Obama is deftly playing both sides to get votes from both the pro- and anti-nuclear voters. The anti side counts on the provisions added to his comments.
What will Obama do as President? I have no idea, but I am pretty sure his nominee for Energy Secretary is not going to be a huge nuclear power supporter.
I favor nuclear energy as strongly as Sen. McCain does.
However, until the Republican Party goes back to its traditions and shows some fiscal conservatism and restraint in foreign affairs, I will either vote Libertarian/Ron Paul, or I will vote for the Democrat.
McCain has a lot of work to do within his own party on the climate change issue.
He ought to start with his Party's Superstars: Rush Limbaugh is about as big as A-Rod - he just got a new almost-$400-million contract. Yet, Rush Limbaugh doesn't think that fossil fuel combustion causes climate change. (And by the way, Rush is no help to the War on Drugs, either, with his oxycontin abuse).
Just like "anonymous," I will say "I love President Bush."
Here is why: President Bush has changed the culture in America to make one of my hobbies, bicycling, more socially acceptable with a quadrupling of gas prices since he entered office.
Aside from Bill Clinton's strengths in maintaining a balanced Federal budget and strong U.S. dollar, the Democrats have some very serious limitations. Key among these limitations is failure to increase vehicle fuel efficiency standards while Clinton was in office.
Then again, the Republicans had 2000-2004 with the friendly Republican Congress to get going on domestic energy sources. They didn't.
So, now, the Republicans blame the Democrats. Wrong.
Unlike "anonymous," I have the fortitude to attach my name to my comment.
I hear you about difficulties with Blogger - but they've done a great job resolving past problems with commenting.
If you click the "Name/URL" radio button under "Choose an identity" you can provide a name there. No need to set up anything.
Sen. OBAMA: "It was recently announced by Exelon Nuclear that an environmental monitoring program discovered higher than normal concentrations of tritium in the groundwater near their Nuclear Generating Station. Indications are that this tritium plume is the result of an accidental radioactive wastewater release that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago. Community residents did not receive full or immediate notification of this contamination.
"I was surprised to learn, that while Federal law requires notification immediately upon a "declared emergency," Federal law does not require notification of any other accidental, unplanned, or unintentional radioactive substance releases that may occur if those releases do not immediately rise to a public health or safety threat. And while those incidents must be documented with the NRC and made available to the public, accessing that information is contingent upon the public actually knowing that these incidents ever occurred.
"When radioactive substances are released into the environment outside of normal operating procedures, notifying State and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law.
"It is reasonable--and realistic--for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants--the most of any state. The people of Illinois--and all residents who live near nuclear power plants--have a right to know when actions are taken that might affect their safety and well-being."