Nuclear may not be perfect, I grant you that, but no energy source is. Renewables also have their own issues (energy sprawl, intermittency…)

This is why we need an alternative.

Nuclear may not be THE solution but I believe it is part of the solution. France and many other nations demonstrate it…

75 years ago, fission was first achieved. I am ready to bet that within 25 years, we will have found a way to recycle nuclear waste… (cf. TerraPower)

I recently outlined ten reasons to support nuclear

( http://www.elrst.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-support-nuclear-power/ )

I believe America should get its electricity from 40 % nuclear, 40 % renewables and 20 % thermal. (the latter to solve the intermittency issue)

I think it can be done with serious efforts on energy conservation and efficiency. Yes, you can !

Nuclear may not be perfect, I grant you that, but no energy source is. Renewables also have their own issues (energy sprawl, intermittency…)

This is why we need an alternative.

Nuclear may not be THE solution but I believe it is part of the solution. France and many other nations demonstrate it…

75 years ago, fission was first achieved. I am ready to bet that within 25 years, we will have found a way to recycle nuclear waste… (cf. TerraPower)

I recently outlined ten reasons to support nuclear

( http://www.elrst.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-support-nuclear-power/ )

I believe America should get its electricity from 40 % nuclear, 40 % renewables and 20 % thermal. (the latter to solve the intermittency issue)

I think it can be done with serious efforts on energy conservation and efficiency. Yes, you can !

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/19283

OK the page can be seen as advertising hype but just consider the implications of widespread use of this emerging technology. Ill bet the French Nuclear power industry will be interested.

Shame I do not have any cash to invest. Perhaps the Environmental Community should be demanding the adoption of such new metal technology… after they buy their Shares.

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/19283

OK the page can be seen as advertising hype but just consider the implications of widespread use of this emerging technology. Ill bet the French Nuclear power industry will be interested.

Shame I do not have any cash to invest. Perhaps the Environmental Community should be demanding the adoption of such new metal technology… after they buy their Shares.

Four comments (including my first) and they’re all pro-nuclear. Pretty interesting.

The other factor not mentioned by “Friends” of the Earth is that is scarcely relevant what the U.S. does to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, if we don’t also find a clean energy generation technology cheaply available to nations like China and India, each of whom have roughly four times the population of the U.S. China, for example, has an economy only one-third the size of the U.S. economy, but has ALREADY exceeded the U.S. in CO2 emissions!

I have read glowing reports from solar companies that they have achieved solar power mass-generation at “only” 16 cents a kilowatt hour, but how in the heck is that going to compete with coal-burning plant’s 3 cents a kilowatt hour?

From all I’ve read, nuclear generates its power at 3-4 cents a kilowatt hour, even with all the costs imposed by the tight regulation of the industry, with which I agree.

A carbon tax will more than bridge that possible 1 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and nuclear, but it would have to be onerous indeed to bridge the 13 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and solar, for example!

Solar, wind and geothermal SHOULD be part of the mix, but so should nuclear, as it’s the only near-term cost-competitive replacement for coal-burning plants that the likes of India and China can rapidly adopt.

If we insist on a no-nuclear approach, the even worse alternative will be for the fast growing countries of the world to adopt cheap coal power, with disastrous environmental results for us all.

Four comments (including my first) and they’re all pro-nuclear. Pretty interesting.

The other factor not mentioned by “Friends” of the Earth is that is scarcely relevant what the U.S. does to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, if we don’t also find a clean energy generation technology cheaply available to nations like China and India, each of whom have roughly four times the population of the U.S. China, for example, has an economy only one-third the size of the U.S. economy, but has ALREADY exceeded the U.S. in CO2 emissions!

I have read glowing reports from solar companies that they have achieved solar power mass-generation at “only” 16 cents a kilowatt hour, but how in the heck is that going to compete with coal-burning plant’s 3 cents a kilowatt hour?

From all I’ve read, nuclear generates its power at 3-4 cents a kilowatt hour, even with all the costs imposed by the tight regulation of the industry, with which I agree.

A carbon tax will more than bridge that possible 1 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and nuclear, but it would have to be onerous indeed to bridge the 13 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and solar, for example!

Solar, wind and geothermal SHOULD be part of the mix, but so should nuclear, as it’s the only near-term cost-competitive replacement for coal-burning plants that the likes of India and China can rapidly adopt.

If we insist on a no-nuclear approach, the even worse alternative will be for the fast growing countries of the world to adopt cheap coal power, with disastrous environmental results for us all.

The French nuclear power plants are based on a common design. Their cost is 10% that of a nuclear reactor here in the U.S….it also helps that Bechtel Corp doesn’t build the French units. Enrichment of spent fuel rods also reduces the waste volume by nearly 90%.

The Chinese at latest count have 7 nuclear facilities in the design-build pipeline. Even Sweden has admitted that they screwed up by abolishing nuclear power some years ago and are looking to incorporate it in their energy mix.

The French nuclear power plants are based on a common design. Their cost is 10% that of a nuclear reactor here in the U.S….it also helps that Bechtel Corp doesn’t build the French units. Enrichment of spent fuel rods also reduces the waste volume by nearly 90%.

The Chinese at latest count have 7 nuclear facilities in the design-build pipeline. Even Sweden has admitted that they screwed up by abolishing nuclear power some years ago and are looking to incorporate it in their energy mix.

thanks for the extra info.

i think nuclear is at about 10% (of total energy) in the US now: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/30/renewable-energy-on-the-rise-fossil-fuels-declining/

thanks for the extra info.

i think nuclear is at about 10% (of total energy) in the US now: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/30/renewable-energy-on-the-rise-fossil-fuels-declining/

– France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power.

– The U.S. gets roughly 20% of its energy from nuclear.

– France produces 70% LESS carbon dioxide on a per-capita basis than the U.S. does, and indeed shut its last coal-burning plant in 2004. Coincidence?

I wish the environmental community of which I am a part would drop this anti-nuclear power obsession. It benefits absolutely no one but the coal industry.

– France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power.

– The U.S. gets roughly 20% of its energy from nuclear.

– France produces 70% LESS carbon dioxide on a per-capita basis than the U.S. does, and indeed shut its last coal-burning plant in 2004. Coincidence?

I wish the environmental community of which I am a part would drop this anti-nuclear power obsession. It benefits absolutely no one but the coal industry.