The Hill Street Blahg

5 Comments for

Duh

• Melissa | January 9th, 2009 at 2:14 PM
  

  http://www.new.ans.org/

  I think you’d be surprised that many of us fun loving enviro-whackos are for nuclear energy, but realize that cost of plant construction is a significant barrier…What most of the general public doesn’t realize is that nuclear plants actually emit LESS radiation than a standard coal plant.

  The last I checked, there are actually 3 potential plants – Tenn. Valley, Vogtle-Georgia, and Lake Charles, LA may all be future sites of nuclear plants. If they can pass through and be built, I’m all for it.

• steadyteddy | January 9th, 2009 at 3:42 PM
  

  Melissa:
  A pure enviro wacko is NOT for any kind of nuclear energy. So, I think you need to re-define yourself. Regarding the cost… the money we have saved on gasoline since the huge price drop is staggering. It is enough to build that first nuclear plant. Look at the many european models. They can do it. They can afford it. They can do it safely. Cost is NOT an excuse.

• The Hillman | January 9th, 2009 at 3:51 PM
  

  Mellisa – It’s comforting to know there are some clear thinking enviro-weenies such as yourself who support nuclear energy. Yes, the initial cost of these plants are unbelievable, but the initial cost does include up to 40 years worth of fuel rods. The plants pay for themselves rather quickly and once they are paid for, they are literally the nuclear goose that lays the golden egg. I might add, the high initial costs of these plants are the result of nuclear regulatory standards which must be adhered to and unreasonable union work rules. Who would have thunk it? What’s interesting, European and Asian countries can build these very same plants for far less money than we can here in American. I was unaware of the three potential plants you made mention of, but I do know there are plans for several plants in North Carolina and one in Maryland. It will take years to get these plants licensed however, because of the militant enviro-wackos who will fight the permitting process in court. If those clowns in Congress were sincere about jump starting our economy, they would spend some of Our Money they’re planning on wasting on bail outs and earmarks and put it to good use and build more Nuke Plants.

• Jerry | January 10th, 2009 at 11:13 PM
  

  Nuclear is really the best of a bunch of bad options. What could reduce nuclear costs significantly are a removal the onerous regulation of nuclear power and a shift in public perception stoked by environmentalist fearmongering.

  Cost is, however, an excuse for not doing it altogether. We should weigh the benefit of reducing emissions (possibly nil, really, amid a recently cooling climate and little indication that we as humans can effect climate change) against the increased cost of turning away from our really good energy generators like coal and natural gas. If it is a matter billions of dollars to feel better about ourselves, I’d rather have the billions.

• Melissa | January 11th, 2009 at 1:51 PM
  

  I work in coal-gen and I’ll kindly disagree once again. Environmental regulations are not impossible to get around. There is indeed technology available to modernize and regulate coal plants for much less than the cost of developing nuclear energy plants. Until regulation becomes strict or absolutely impossible in regards to coal-gen do we have enough of a driver in various US regions to develop nuclear plants.

  Cost is the excuse sited by energy companies who could construct and operate a coal-gen plant for less. Europe (namely France) and Asia can construct and operate nuclear plants because it proves to be more effective. Coal (at least in this corner of the US) is still incredibly plentiful, abundant, and nuclear energy does not make complete fiscal sense. However, with increasing environmental regulation regarding coal-gen plants, other options such as nuclear or new methods of re-gen within coal power plants (or the added use of alternative or waste fuels) as sources will be considered.

  Other barriers to immediate plant development can also be considered…The lead time and development of a nuclear site does take longer than a typical coal or alternative fuel plant. Regulation (regardless of enviro-whackos) is obviously more strict because of regulation resulting from disasters such as 3-mile Island, Chernobyl, etc. It’s not that safeguards don’t exist for coal/alt plants, but they are not as extensive, nor technologically demanding. Other barriers to entry are the result of heightened security post 9/11. The items in place meant to protect the public become serious red tape for the transfer and development of goods for use in a nuclear plant.

  Where the true whackos cause difficulties for nuclear power are in regards to nuclear waste disposal. Other countries are successfully disposing it with newer technologies and yet, we remain in a state of bickering about it in the US.

  We may also see a re-structuring as to HOW we go about providing power to users. Smaller drivers, such as households and businesses require less power and could be powered by smaller substations or using alternative forms, where larger, industrial or commercial users require standard, larger generating plants for energy service/consumption. This isn’t anything new…there’s already trending for households and farms to generate a portion or all power from solar, wind, or alternative energy, whatever is best for the particular location.

What say you?

Name *

Mail *

Website