Nukes Aren't the Answer

http://www.counterpunch.org/alvarez02162010.html

When President Obama rolled out his proposed budget to Congress for the coming year, he said it would build “on the largest investment in clean energy in history.” But Obama’s definition of “clean energy” includes a commitment to help companies garner billions of dollars in loans for nuclear reactor construction. And, unfortunately, nuclear energy isn't safe or clean and it's too costly for the nation.

The government’s role in the energy marketplace is clear in its loan-guarantee programs. This year, the Energy Department proposes to provide $166 billion in federal energy loan guarantees to aid the ailing auto industry and help finance nuclear, coal, and renewable energy projects. Sadly, the nuclear industry is slated to get the largest and riskiest share of that support.

Wall Street has refused to finance nuclear power for more than 30 years, rendering new construction impossible. The Obama administration, in a move to placate Senate Republicans, proposes to fund new power reactors with some $54.5 billion in federal loan guarantees. Because of the way the guarantees are structured, the actual loans will be made by the Federal Financing Bank out of the U.S. Treasury. Last year, the Government Accountability Office estimated that these loans have more than a 50-50 chance of failing. Because of skyrocketing costs, these loans might pay for five reactors and merely expand the nation’s electrical supply by less than 1 percent.

:snip:

Meanwhile, despite Obama’s rhetoric about reshaping America's energy future, he’s asking for a budget that would have the Energy Department continue to spend 10 times more on nuclear weapons than energy conservation.


Much more at the link above --


BTW -- this guy knows of what he speaks --

Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment from 1993 to 1999.

our population increases year by year. we don't have enough electrical infrastructure. because we don't have enough electrical infrastructure, we are forced to import an insane amount of energy. because we are forced to import an insane amount of energy, we are forced to intervene worldwide to protect our access to energy.

we need new electrical infrastructure. i don't see any way around that.

Stop that.

That's the single most important answer.

Are you willing to completely seal off the borders? Because our population expansion comes almost entirely through immigration.

It just moves it around a bit.

Granted, immigrants may use more resources once they're here than they would have otherwise, but then I don't even know if that's true.

I thought we were talking about the U.S. That's where the reactors are needed.

We have all that open expanse of land in the middle of the country that can be used for solar fields. We can do wind. Hell, we can use wave technology.

Nuclear is an old problem that has far too many potential EXTREME problems to invest in. Hell -- if Wall Street wouldn't invest in it for the past 3 decades - why is our government suddenly in this balls to the wall rush to do so?

Do you think that Wall Street might have recognized that it's a losing proposition? Those folks don't invest in losers.

Personally, I'm thinking the Military Industrial Complex is the backdoor *partner* on this *idea*. Have they used up all their Depleted Uranium weapons yet?

Do you really think we get our food from the grocery store?

:rofl:

They sterilize the ground under the solar panels to keep the 'weeds' from growing and blocking the panels from the sun.
Like the ground around power sub-stations, nothing ever grows.

green technologies cannot provide us with the energy we need even with drastic cut backs in energy usage

Sometimes there are no easy solutions.

unfortunately, the tech is not there yet, and we need to slow importing of fossil fuels now for many reasons.

right now, nuclear is the option. i would support diverting a lot of resources towards renewable development right now, though.

2) What *PROVEN* technology exists for dealing with Nuclear Waste?

And please don't insult our intelligence by saying "reprocessing",
because while reprocessing recovers burnable uranium (and
plutonium) from the spent fuel, it *DOES NOT* eliminate the
waste problem associated with all the other radionuclides.

Tesha

wind producing facilities don't produce as much electricity or last as long as nuclear. we should be fixing that. once that's done, i don't have a problem with wind farms everywhere. i don't have much of a problem with wind farms everywhere right now, to tell you the truth.

2. it's going to have to be stored somewhere for now until reprocessing tech improves. but, to be perfectly honest, your choice right now is nuclear or coal. nuclear is the better choice.

there is a prevailing pipe dream that we can somehow conserve enough to not have to increase electrical capacity. because of this pipe dream, we are currently engaged in worldwide interventionism with the goal of ensuring that we can maintain access to oil. i'd like to see that policy stop. right now, the only developed technology available to help us do that is nuclear.

> 2. it's going to have to be stored somewhere for now until reprocessing tech
> improves. but, to be perfectly honest, your choice right now is nuclear or coal.
> nuclear is the better choice.

The time to bring a nuke on-line is probably a decade. It's
not instantaneous, although the proponents like to speak
of it as if it were.

The time to bring a wind farm on-line is probably quite a
bit less than that.

Tesha

Ten Thousand. Nearly twice the number of residents in my city. Dead.

True GREEN technologies are needed.

"Green" technologies are too inefficient and unreliable. Wind don't blow, sun sets, that kind of stuff. Plus their power output is too low per dollar input. Coal and nuclear are much more efficient.

Green technologies haven't been utilized enough to make those flip judgement calls. And it looks as if the people who make the profit -from- coal and nuclear are going to be doing their damndest to keep them from getting a fair shake.

Typical corporate greed.

will kill? What of the desert blooming flower, the lizard, or gila monster whose habitat your solar arrays will destroy?

Today, or maybe it was yesterday, a DU'er posted that 90 sq. mi. of solar array would provide ALL the electricity the country needs. That's 8100 square miles of area where the sun will no longer shine and whatever rain runnoff there might be will be redirected, thus destroying a fragile ecosystem where the array currently exists.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself says there are places where wind generators should not be placed; namely in plain view of his front yard.

Given that your choice of "green technologies" will surely be protested by SOMEONE, what's the best answer? You don't want nukes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn't want wind generators where he can see them, the Audobon Society decries bird deaths due to wind turbine blades... Whose sensibilities get trampled on?

To sacrificing 90 sq miles of area for the total electrical needs of the country?

Nuclear is a ticking time bomb. And as you said coal also kills, and has killed generations of people. While I don't have all the answers, I do know that nuclear will be a very real hazard, considering the FACT that the government offices that used to protect citizens from hazards have gone through 30 years of gu8tting by Republicans and Corporo-Dems.

Hell, we are now down to just *13* slaughterhouses for the meat supply in this country and we STILL have e-coli outbreaks?

I'd much prefer seeing the offices of OVERSIGHT be pumped up before ANY concrete decisions are made. I *don't* trust my government to protect myself or my neighbors.

Best case average solar radiation per square meter in the U.S. is about 1 kilowatt. Assuming high-cost silicon crystalline solar cells, your best case efficiency is 30%, so that amounts to 300 watts/m^2.

Peak load in 2008 was 752,470 megawatts. Divide 752470 MW by 300 watts/m^2 and you get 2.508 * 10^9 m^2, or 2,508 square kilometers, or 968 square miles, roughly the size of Rhode Island.

Keep in mind this is using BEST CASE sunlight scenarios with the most expensive commercially available solar components. If you want to account for clouds, triple or quadruple that. If you want to provide this level of capacity for more than a couple of hours a day, increase it by an order of magnitude or more. And this doesn't take into account seasonal variations either.

If I have made an error, please point it out. Otherwise, I have to conclude this "90 square miles" figure is pure unmitigated bullshit.

Due to low capacity of solar peak load (energy) underestimate the amount of panels needed to supply demand (power).

While peak load (energy) was 752 GW, total US electrical demand/consumption (power) was 4 trillion kWh in 2009.

Most of United States has an average insolation of between 3.0 and 6.0 kWh per day per m^2.



Say we could place panel in various locations around the country to get an average insolation of 5.0kWh /day/m^2 and we used best commercially available panels of 20% (30% far too expensive).
5.0kWh /(day*m^2) * 0.20 efficiency * 365days/year = 456.25 kWh annually per m^2

4 trillion kWh in demand = 4.0*10^13 kWh

4.0*10^13 kWh / 456.25kwh per m^2 = 8.76*10^10 m2 = 87,671 square kilometers = 33,850 square miles.

Of course you would also need the largest (yet uninvented) energy storage device to store power when sun isn't shining or when demand doesn't match generation.

More realistically you would also factor in:
* 10% for maintenance, damaged panels, reduced output
* 15% additional space for access roads, spaces between panels, working areas
* 20% overhead for power storage (yet uninvented)

Roughly 51,384 square miles accounting for the above inefficiencies.

"What of the migrating birds that your wind powered generators will kill? What of the desert blooming flower, the lizard, or gila monster whose habitat your solar arrays will destroy?"

"That's 8100 square miles of area where the sun will no longer shine"

Where's that solar project located? Perhaps 8,100 square miles in the entire nation would be used.

Protect the land, kill all solar projects, but, why should we stop there?

Let's take your position to its logical conclusion.

If we stop ALL building construction and prevent the expansion of ALL cities and towns and their populations we will protect our environment!

...with all the area taken up by, say, the Interstate Highway system.
I didn't hear all that much objection to that expenditure of land,
even though, to a first approximation, I'll bet it's similar or even
greater.

And that's *JUST* the Interstate Highway system. The total area of
all paved roads is doubtless far, far greater!

Tesha

but are certainly part of it.

Sid

...ago

We need a lot more nukes and a lot less coal.