Senator Alexander made a call to return to the promise of nuclear energy:
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called Wednesday for doubling the number of nuclear reactors nationwide, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.
Obama's administration is considering a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gases and to require larger quantities of carbon-free energy production.
The country's 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity, while most of its energy comes from carbon-producing coal.
Of course, the enviro-radical end of the eco-concerned quickly turned on the scare tactics:
Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander's proposal "reckless."
"Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution," Smith said. "New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for."
Actually, had we built all of the reactors we originally planned decades ago, we wouldn't be having an energy crisis. Nuclear energy has been proved safe. Other countries use it even more extensively. New reactors are even safer, produce less waste (much of which is recyclable), than the older generations. We do have places to store waste, people like you, Steve, won't let us.
Alexander said he also backs renewable energy sources, notably solar power and biomass fuels, yet called those still too expensive and inefficient.
Exactly. We need diversity.
"Today there is a huge energy gap between the renewable electricity we would like to have and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have," he said.
There are a number of reactors waiting approval or already approved. It's time to end the scare tactics and the pretend-to-care-politicians and really solve our energy problems. -D
The post got eaten by Wordpress, but I liveblogged Admiral (retired) Skip Bowman - former Navy Nuke Program head and NEI chairman.
Nuke power is a challege for three reasons:
- Lack of current fuel recycling capacity, which he said could be built for the cost of one nuclear plant
- Lack of engineers
- Rate of construction couldn't catch up with the growth of the grid (20% was about optimum) due to NIMBY issues.
He said nuke power was part of an overall diversified energy strategy. 4 star nuke admirals aren't dummies; I'd say he's probably right.
I know Westinghouse near Pittsburgh is building entire new facilities, and hiring quite a few new people, just for the new nuclear plants its building in China. Hopefully this build-up in the industry will help when the government decides we need more plants in the U.S.
Why do I think this argument will go on for several more decades? Seems like no definitive decision is ever made, and energy costs go higher and higher. Good article!