Should We Build More Nuclear Power Plants?

January 25, 2008

I have to admit that for a long time, I’ve had a lot of qualms about nuclear power as a source of electricity. I was in college in Pennsylvania during the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and I remember being downwind as a pretty scary experience.  (The alarmist antinuclear thriller The China Syndrome, which I saw the weekend after the accident, added a bit to my anxiety, especially that line of dialogue about a nuclear meltdown’s potential to render an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.)  Fortunately, the partial core meltdown of TMI’s unit 2 reactor was brought under control before a disaster of gigantic proportions could occur. But seven years later, when a reactor suffered a steam explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the then-Soviet Union, the Soviets and their European neighbors weren’t so lucky. The accident spread radiation as far as the UK and Sweden, and a 2005 international report estimated that the area surrounding the stricken reactor will suffer as many as 4,000 additional deaths from cancer. After TMI and Chernobyl, I figured, nuclear power was pretty much dead. The only concerns left, I figured, were the problems of safely maintaining the aging nuclear power plants already in existence, and figuring out what to do with the radioactive waste building up on site at those plants.

But the rapidly developing global warming crisis has forced me — and a lot of other people, I suspect — to at least reconsider my opposition to nuclear power. Seventy percent of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by power plants that burn fossil fuels, and as a result, we’re pumping ungodly amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. And the explosively growing nations of China and India are doing their best to burn even more coal to generate electricity than we do. Energy conservation on a massive global scale is what we really need, but good luck with convincing Americans — and everyone else across the planet who aspires to a blithely affluent U.S. lifestyle — to carpool or turn down their air conditioning in the summer, let alone unplug the appliances and electronic gadgets that turn into energy-wasting  “vampire devices” when they’re idle.

So what do we do? In 2006, one-time Greenpeace International director Patrick Moore wrote a Washington Post opinion piece advocating the building of more nuclear power plants as a way of reducing dependence upon fossil fuels and curbing climate change. Moore argued that nuclear power was a more viable source of greenhouse emissions-free power than other alternative energy sources:

"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."

Moore discounted the criticisms that many opponents of nuclear power have raised. Even the horrific accident at Chernobyl, he noted, caused fewer deaths than the 5,000 deaths in coal-mining accidents worldwide each year. And as for the problem of disposing nuclear waste, he wrote that

"Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind."

He’s not the only one who supports building more nuclear power plants. According to this chart compiled by the environmental news and commentary Web site Grist, not only do all the remaining Republican presidential candidates support expanded use of nuclear power, but the two top Democratic contenders are at least lukewarm to the idea. (Sen. Barack Obama, whose home state of Illinois gets 40 percent of its power from nuclear plants, told CNN in November 2007 that while nuclear wasn’t his most favored option, “it has to be part of our energy mix,” while Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York  in August 2007 described herself as “agnostic” about nuclear power. (Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is opposed to building more plants, and congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio wants to dismantle existing ones.)

So what do you think? Should we build more nuclear power plants? Or should we focus harder on energy conservation and developing solar, wind and geothermal technologies instead? Express your opinion below.

Comments

[McCain in 2008]

I've been reading this blog for a while and this is the first really intelligent idea that I've seen here. I'm all for fighting global warming, but we have to get going quickly if we're going to make any headway, and it's going to take decades to develop alternative energy sources like solar, geothermal and wind to the point where they can be major parts of the mix. Nuclear power already is a viable power source. We ought to start a crash program to build more nuclear plants. I think if we focused upon improving the technology, we could not only make it even safer, but reduce the complexity of building and licensing plants. If simply make provisions to store the waste on site, we don't have to worry about creating a big repository in Yucca Mountain or anywhere else. If we got a lot of new plants on line over the next decade, that would give us some breathing room to work on energy conservation, electric and hydrogen cars, etc.

p.s., btw, The MAC is BACK!

[B. Linn]

Nuclear power plants can be built to be safe now, are nearly completely emission free, and the technology is aleady available. Hydrogen won't solve our problems nearly as well as advertised, and is years down the road (no pun intended). Nuclear could provide ample electricity now for electric cars, domestic and commercial consumption, all with zero greenhouse gasses. France is largely nuclear, why not us?

[Still A Hippie]

Read this article about nuclear waste http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/
and then tell me whether it's a good idea to build moere nuclear plants.

[Glenn from Glendale]

Well, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear power plant waste.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[Natural Man]

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
cause none of them can stop the time.
--Bob Marley

[Patrick Kiger]

I found this on the web site of the World Nuclear Association, a London-based group that promotes nuclear power.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/climate.html

Responding to Global Climate Change: The Potential Contribution of Nuclear Power
A position paper by the Uranium Institute

The parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have adopted the long term aim of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous changes in the climate. This has to be done in a way which is consistent with continued economic and social development. The challenge for energy supply over the next 50 years, therefore, is how to meet the rapidly growing demand for energy services from a growing population while limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power has the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. As such, it has the potential to play a vital role in meeting this challenge.

The contribution of nuclear power to electricity supplies has grown rapidly since the 1970s. As of May 1997, 436 power reactors were in operation in 32 countries. Nuclear power provided over 2300 TWh in 1996. This is about 17% of the world's total electricity, or 7% of total primary energy. This contribution avoids the emission of about 2300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, assuming it would otherwise be provided mainly by coal-fired plants. This represents nearly one-third of the CO2 presently emitted by power generation. Since electricity generation accounts for about 30% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, total emissions would be about 10% higher if it were not for nuclear power.

This paper sets out the background against which the future role of all energy sources must be assessed, and looks at the contribution that nuclear power could make to balanced energy supply policies for responding to global climate change.

Population and energy demand growth

The world population continues to rise rapidly and is expected to reach at least 10 billion by 2050, nearly double the present population of 5.7 billion. Most of this increase will take place in developing countries, although some developed countries will also experience rising populations.

At present, per capita energy use varies enormously between developed and developing countries. As the developing countries continue to build up their industries and infrastructure, their energy use per capita will increase. Since their populations will also be growing, total energy demand of these countries will grow rapidly. Energy demand in developed countries will grow relatively slowly, but such countries will still need to ensure adequate energy supplies.

In developed countries with high per capita levels of energy use there may be considerable scope for energy conservation measures. Nevertheless, if all the world's people are to have adequate supplies of energy by the middle of the next century then the supply of energy services will clearly need to much more than double. Even allowing for major improvements in efficiency both in the conversion and end-use of energy, it would appear that a doubling of energy supply by 2050 is the least that can be expected consistent with an acceptable level of economic and social development.

Meeting energy demand while limiting carbon dioxide emissions

Industrialisation has been achieved in the developed countries of the world almost entirely through the exploitation of fossil fuels. It is no exaggeration to say that our present global civilisation is based on fossil fuels. The fundamental product of the combustion of fossil fuels is carbon dioxide; the only way to limit CO2 emissions is to limit the use of fossil fuels.

This can only be done by making a decisive shift away from our present overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels, by making the fullest use practicable of existing and emerging non-fossil energy sources. Two such sources, hydro and nuclear, already make a significant contribution to energy supplies. Emerging non-fossil energy sources, commonly referred to collectively as renewables, include wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

It is fortunate in this respect that nuclear and the various renewable sources will complement each other well in providing a balanced electricity supply system. Many of the renewables are by their nature variable or intermittent, or may be limited by geographical or other considerations. In contrast, nuclear power plants are best suited to steady baseload operation, to maximise their output over the year. They are concentrated energy sources, taking up little land area and able to supply densely populated urban areas.

The potential role of non-fossil energy sources

As discussed above, primary energy requirements are likely to at least double by 2050. What are the potential contributions which non-fossil energy sources could make by this time?

Nuclear power is a technically well-developed energy source, which has expanded rapidly since it was first introduced in about 1960. Several major engineering companies from different parts of the world are presently able to construct nuclear power plants with the highest standards of operation and safety. We can assume that by 2050 nuclear power could be providing about four times its present output, or 14% of the assumed total energy supply by that time.

This implies a nuclear generating capacity of just over 1200 GWe in 2050, compared with about 340 GWe in 1995. In terms of number of reactors, it implies that there would be between 800 and 1000 reactors in operation, compared with about 430 at present (assuming the typical reactor size remains similar to that of reactors presently being built, of 1200 to 1500 MWe). Over a period of more than 50 years, this represents a modest growth in nuclear capacity.

The potential contribution of renewables is much more uncertain. Forecasts range from over 50% of all primary energy by 2050 to just a few percent. Most of the renewables are at an early stage of development, and it may be several decades before large scale deployment of some of them can begin. Large questions remain about their economic viability, although it can be expected that unit costs will fall significantly as development continues. However, the siting of renewable energy generators such as large wind farms may raise public acceptance issues in densely populated regions, while biomass production may have to compete for arable land with food production.

If we make the optimistic assumption that all the renewables together (including hydro) might be providing about 40% of all primary energy by 2050, this would mean that nuclear and renewables together could reduce the role of fossil fuels from about 85% of primary energy supply at present to below half. This could allow energy supply to be doubled while keeping CO2 emissions at about the same level.

On the other hand, if we assumed that nuclear power was completely phased out by 2050, then even if we make the same optimistic assumption about the contribution from renewables, carbon dioxide emissions from energy supply would increase by up to 40% from present levels. This illustrates the potentially vital role that nuclear power can make in limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases.

In view of the above, the nuclear industry supports:

effective measures to conserve energy and to improve the efficiency of energy converson and end-use;
the development of all forms of renewable energy, and the large scale deployment of those which become economically viable;
the expanded use of nuclear energy.

[Brian]

Yes. In terms of the energy technologies we have available to us today for baseload generation, nuclear is the most environmentally friendly of all of them.

The amount of waste generated is very small. Over 40 years, commercial spent nuclear fuel is only one football stadium filled up to the goalposts. It is all contained and easily handled. In addition, it still retains 98% of its energy content that we could burn in the future if necessary with reprocessing. Add to this if we reprocess, the waste volume is much smaller and is only more active than uranium ore for a few hundred years as opposed to tens of thousands.

New designs are very safe compared to energy sources. No one in the public has ever been killed by US commercial nuclear power, so it has a very good safety record. No one was harmed at the Three Mile Island incident. No reactor like that of Chernobyl could ever be built here.

Building nuclear plants is expensive, but cheap to operate efficiently and safely. That being said, if coal were required to dispose of all of its waste like nuclear, there would be no question as to which baseload source is cheaper.

[Sovietologist]

Yes. I think that the case for nuclear power is best made by looking abroad. Despite all the coverage of the "nuclear renaissance" in the American media, few people in this country have any conception of just what a resurgence the technology has experienced in recent years. The most important case is that of the UK, where the government actually did the requisite research and found that nuclear power was indispensable for Britain's future. This was not a popular decision, and you can be assured that if windmills and solar panels could do it alone, they would have gone that route. But the most impressive example for me is that of Ukraine and Belarus, which received the main consequences of Chernobyl. Both of these countries have embarked on ambitious nuclear construction programs. I personally cannot think of a more meaningful endorsement for nuclear power.

[gmax]

Yes I think we need to build more nuclear plants. But I also believe we need to build more solar and more wind plants, and we need to learn to conserve. We need to do all of these things. As long as we continue fighting among ourselves (as if only nuclear is good or only solar is good), we are doomed to an unpleasant future, certainly unpleasant for our children.

[Orange Gary]

The main problem with nuclear plants is the long-term disposal of the spent fuel and what happens to the plants once they shut down. If you have a proliferation of plants, these issues will only escalate. And like so many things, we will get the benefit and hand off the problem to future generations.

[Keith Graham]

Building more nuclear plants is the most cost effective means of meeting the demand for additional electrical production capacity and for resolving greenhouse gas issues.

[Patrick Kiger]

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an activist-watchdog group, raises an issue that I hadn't thought about. How vulnerable would additional nuclear plants be to a 9/11-style terrorist attack?

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/nrcs-revised-security.html

Nuclear Plant Sabotage
NRC Ignores Threat of Air Attack on Nuclear Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Links
in this section
The NRC's Revised Security Regulations
Following the 9/11 tragedy, the NRC initiated what it termed a "top to bottom" review of nuclear power reactor security. As their review progressed, the NRC issued orders and advisories requiring plant owners to implement security upgrades and changes. On January 29, 2007, the NRC's Commissioners voted 5-0 to revise regulations to formally codify all the orders and advisories.

Curiously, the revisions to the regulations resulting from a "top to bottom" review prompted by a tragedy in which terrorists hijacked commercial aircraft and deliberately crashed them into buildings explicitly assume that aircraft will not be used in future attacks on nuclear power plants. The NRC Chairman issued a short statement about the revised regulations and the aircraft omission which began with these two sentences:

"Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane. The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions—no matter what caused them."

Both sentences strain credibility. Study after study conducted by the NRC and for the NRC consistently concluded that reactor meltdowns can occur if aircraft hit nuclear power plants, but consistently accepted that outcome on the low probability that aircraft would accidentally hit a nuclear plant. Clearly, that acceptability is undermined when terrorists intentionally target nuclear plant sites with hijacked aircraft.

The Chairman's second sentence is equally inconsistent with the facts. NRC inspection after NRC inspection identify that nuclear power plants are not in compliance with pre-9/11 fire regulations. The NRC's response to such findings has been to waive sanctions for the violations and to give plant owners indefinite periods of time to restore compliance. In other words, the NRC's actions (and inactions) have left nuclear power plants vulnerable to pre-9/11 fire hazards—hazards only increased by the post-9/11 threat.

UCS chronicled the many studies and actions that clearly challenge the veracity of the NRC Chairman's statements in an 11-page brief titled "The NRC's Revised Security Regulations" (see the Related Links).

[Randal Leavitt]

Yes, of course we should build more nuclear power plants. And we should build better ones - cheap little things that can be mass produced. The fuel should be in liquid form instead of solid as it is today which will end all weapon proliferation concerns. Our new reactors should consume the spent fuel inventory that we have accumulated. All this is feasible based on known technology. If you want to get a bit adventurous we should invest in the research associated with generating electricity from heat, without turbines and generators. This technology is on the edge of becoming feasible. We should switch to powering transportation with electricity. We should use plasma torches to melt garbage and sewage away so we dont need dumps for cities, and we should heat our building with the excess heat that is released by nuclear reactors. We know how to build a nice, clean, safe world. Do we have the heart to do it?

[nvs simmons]

With globel warming upon us and more drought conditions, the shortage of water for a nuclear power plants will be a problem.They would only be a temporary fix until other energy solutions are implimented. Not one, but many sources of energy must be developed depending on location.

[Keith Graham]

Water shortages are not unique to nuclear power. Any fossil fuel powered plant also uses a comparable amount of water for cooling when compared to nuclear.

[Patrick Kiger]

That's essentially true--both conventional and nuclear power plants use a lot of water. According to http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html, a nuclear plant uses 0.62 gallons per kilowatt/hour, compared to 0.49 for coal and 0.43 for oil.

If water usage is a big issue, solar and wind, which need only small amounts of water for cleaning, become a lot more attractive. Photovoltaic panels require just 0.03 gallons per kW/h, and wind turbine farms use just 0.001 gallons per kW/h.

[RobCra]

B. Linn, I looked at the National Geographic article. It's just the same old stuff. First, the author ties nuclear energy to atomic bombs, the sure-fire way to make people oppose it. Then he tosses around a lot of big-sounding numbers but doesn't put them in context or scale.

Think about it. You don't know of a single incident in which nuclear power wastes have harmed any person or any thing. In contrast, coal wastes are piling up in huge slag heaps and sludge ponds and toxic chemicals such as heavy metals are leaching into aquifers that supply drinking water and farm irrigation. And they are harming people.

On the subject of water: It's true that cooling water is a concern. However, there are work-arounds available. Nuclear plants (and fossil-fired ones, too, but I'm not arguing for them) can use dry cooling towers. Alternatively, the waste heat could be used productively for industrial heat or for heating homes and businesses.

But there are no work-arounds for the inability of renewables to provide full-time power for a full-time world. Like it or not, the choice is between nuclear energy and fossil fuels.

[Patrick Kiger]

Actually, I think it was Still A Hippie that posted that link to the National Geographic article, but nevertheless your point about the environmental damage caused by the use of coal for electrical generation is well taken.

The mining of coal also causes a lot of damage--particularly the relatively new practice of mountaintop removal. Here's an article that I wrote a couple of years ago for Mother Jones magazine, about an activist who takes people on tours of mountain areas devastated by mining.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2006/07/unnatural_wonders.html

[Thomas Keister]

Absolutely. From what I have read about the new advances in breeder technology, we could be looking at much more efficient nuclear reactors with much less waste. Does anyone know more about this and whether or not it is currently in use?

A couple of the posts have mentioned hydrogen as an energy source, but hydrogen is not an energy source (not counting fusion), it is just a method for storing energy, and the energy still has to come from somewhere. Through nuclear power we will be able to curb our hydrocarbon addiction by replacing oil/coal power plants with nuclear plants and by using some of the output of these power plants to also produce the hydrogen so that we can still drive our cars without using oil. Additionally, unlike wind and solar energy sources, we can control the output of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is dangerous, but so are hydrocarbon energy sources in both the effects they have on our environment and the economic disaster that could result if we are not ready when the stuff runs out. In my opinion nuclear power is worth the increased risk.

[Patrick Kiger]

Here's a fact sheet about "Generation IV" reactors, which are designed to generate more energy output (and to be more difficult to divert for illicit weapons production in other countries).

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html

[Still A Hippie]

Remember that in order to get utility companies to build nuclear power plants in the first place, Congress had to pass a law limiting their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident. If nuclear power is so safe, why do they need this financial protection?

Beyond that, nuclear power isn't a cost-efficient means of generating electricity. The only reason that utility companies can afford it at all is because of government subsidies. If we supported the development of alternative energy sources in that fashion, they'd quickly become much more economically viable than nuclear.

The only answer to our problems is a combination of conservation and improving energy efficiency across the board. The only reason that we need so much electricity is because we waste incredible amounts of it. Changing our behavior is the big hurdle. We could put a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired plants, and equip existing ones with carbon sequestration technology (there's one system, for example, that traps greenhouse gas emissions and converts them to baking soda). We also could install banks of solar panels in desert areas and build wind farms on a large scale.

[RobCra]

Still A Hippie, those are good points and go right to the heart of the subject. I will address them with the respect they deserve. Regrettably, the answers are very long, owing to their complexity.

The liability issue is one that's caused a lot of confusion. First, nukes don't have a liability limit. Instead, they are taken out of liability laws and put under no-fault laws. Between commercial insurance and self-insurance, they are the best-insured businesses in America. Furthermore, if anyone sustains damages because of a nuclear accident, he doesn't have to prove fault it in court, which would take years and even if he won he'd lose because lawyers would get most of the money. He only has to show that he took a loss and he is compensated.

Why is the government doing it? Because the government supervises every aspect of design, construction, and operation. By passing the Price-Anderson act, the government recognized its responsibilities and established a procedure through which any accident victims could receive compensation. It also got utilities on the hook for the first ten billion dollars in damages. Sharing the responsibility is likely a part of the reason for the astonishingly-high safety record.

Your argument is that private businesses wouldn't build nuclear plants without Price Anderson. That's only speculation. I speculate the opposite way, that if businesses were allowed to build plants on their own terms our electricity now would be 100% nuclear.

What constitutes a subsidy? A subsidy is supposed to be a transfer of money (or possibly property) to an economic entity as a financial benefit. No energy sources get subsidies. But a tax credit is the same thing, so all energy sources get subsidies.

In the current energy plan, the first 6000 MW of new advanced-design nuclear plants can receive up to 1.8¢ per KWH in tax credits for up to 8 years. Up to six new plants could qualify for a subsidy to offset the cost of designing and permitting.[source] Clean renewable sources can receive up to 1.9¢ per KWH for up to 10 years.[source]

So those seem clear enough. But plants are also offered loan guarantees. That clearly benefits the utilities that build them. It also benefits investors. But it only costs taxpayers if the utilities default on the loans. So is that a subsidy? And if it is, how does one evaluate the probability of a default?

Nuclear opponents always cite federal underwriting of nuclear insurance as a subsidy. That could be considered a benefit, but it only costs the taxpayers if there's an accident exceeding 10 billion dollars in damages. In the history of the program, taxpayers have never paid out a cent. Is that a subsidy? And if it is, how does one evaluate the probability of an accident?

Nuclear opponents consider money spent in the past on research and development to be a subsidy. But the R & D money went to make nuclear plants safer, not cheaper. In fact, the research achievements raised the cost to utilities because they had to upgrade their plants when new technology became available. It could be that the superior technology prevented expensive accidents, but the main beneficiaries were members of the public. So, should R & D expenditures be considered a subsidy?

But these considerations don't slow nuclear opponents down for a second. They throw numbers around as if they meant something, and never try to justify them. Here are some examples:

"In the last 50 years, nuclear energy subsidies have totaled close to $145 billion; renewable energy subsidies total close to $5 billion."[prwatch.org]

"Between 1948 and 1998, the federal government spent $111.5 billion on energy research and development programs. Of this amount, 60 percent, or $66 billion, was dedicated to nuclear energy research, and 23 percent, or $26 billion, was directed to fossil fuel research."[PIRG]

"Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI), conducting a study of the cumulative effects of energy subsidies, found that by 1997 Federal subsidies for energy had amounted to $564 billion (1997 dollars) over the last five decades, roughly half of which went to the oil industry in the form of tax expenditures. MISI considered eight categories of Federal activity and quantified subsidies in six. In contrast to other findings, MISI found that subsidies to renewable sources ($90 billion) outpaced those to natural gas ($73 billion), coal ($68 billion), or nuclear energy ($61 billion)."
[eia.doe.gov]

"While the bill’s environmental objectives are a strong advance, one provision remains misguided. Despite the provision of billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and over $85 billion in historical subsidies, the bill introduced today contains additional nuclear subsidies that NRDC continues to oppose."[NRDC]

But let's take the wildest of the these guesses, prwatch.org's 145 billion dollars. Spread over the 17,111 billion KWH nuclear plants have generated, the cost of this purported subsidy is 0.8¢/KWH. In contrast, the subsidy for geothermal, wind, and solar, using prwatch.org's 5 billion dollars spread over 485 billion KWH, would be 1¢/KWH. Or, if we use MISI's estimates, the subsidies would be 0.4¢/KWH for nuclear and 18¢/KWH for renewables.

If we were to believe nuclear opponents, they all are stalwart Defenders of the Public Purse. That they are deeply concerned that taxpayers will have to support uneconomic nuclear power plants. Renewable energy sources are different, though. Taxpayers should be glad to support them.

But these numbers show that this is all a red herring. Even if we accept nuclear opponents' exaggerated projections of nuclear subsidies, most renewables still won't compete. On economic grounds, the choice is between nuclear and coal.

So why is coal so cheap? It's because the federal government has a deliberate policy of allowing coal-burning utilities to emit so much pollution into the air that thousands of Americans die every month, all in the interest of holding down electricity rates. Just counting deaths among adults over 25, the estimate ranges from 33,000 to 121,000 per year in the US[table]. Nuclear energy can't compete with coal and neither can anything else, not even conservation.

Subsidies for nuclear energy are not necessary. If air-pollution controls were adequate then windpower, nuclear, and conservation would all be cost-competitive. But if we set a policy that coal-burning utilities are free to poison the air, and we want at the same time to make them stop operating, then we can't just leave it up to the market to decide.

I think energy efficiency is part of conservation, and there's no doubt that conservation is essential to the solution. I haven't heard of a carbon-sequestration scheme that even sounds like it could work. Do you have a reference to the baking-soda scheme? Is there a practical way to dispose of all the resulting baking soda?

But no, there's no way the world will accept part-time energy solutions. No elected government anywhere will force people to stay in their dark, cold houses whenever the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. If people can't get the energy they need from nuclear and renewable, they'll take it from fossil fuels.

[RobCra]

In the comment above, I included links to sources but they don't show up. If anyone wants the sources, I'll be glad to provide them.

[Theamazinghoos]

Nuclear power isnt the only way to generate clean power. IGCC plants are far more efficent and are much cleaner then conventional coal fired plants and there are ways of negating CO2 emissions, such as a study where the emissions are used to grow algae which can then be converted into biodiesel and a solid waste to be burned to energy again.

As far as vampire devices. I propose a device that one can use as you leve the house that acts like a breaker, so when you leave, flip the switch and everything that you want will be cut off from the grid.

Residential solar technology is the next wave, with dye based panels that can be attached to roofs, windows, and siding for 1/10th the cost of conventional PV's.

No new technology, either coal, nuclear, wind farms, or solar arrays will ever be able to be put into use if americans dont get over thier fundamental feeling of "not in my back yard".

[The Mad Yank]

Nuclear power plants, contrary to alarmist thought and Luddite panic, probably offer the safest form of electrical-power generation until we get Star Trek's magical-mystical Antimatter orbital power grid operational - sometime in the late 23rd century (yeah, quit dreaming, I know).
The Chernobyl disaster was due to a BREEDER reactor runaway, in an obsolete design, built to 'hurry-up-and-get-ahead-of-the-Americans' specifications that even the Soviet Union was desperate to replace. It was NOT a front-line unit; in fact, if I remember reading the reports correctly, they were less than 6 months away from shutdown anyway. It was just bad luck that it caught them out.
Look at the safety record here in the US and in Western Europe - or for that matter, the world. TWO - exactly TWO - nuclear power plant accidents, in over 50 years of operations, that have gone bad enough to hit newspapers outside their own countries. ONE that was massive deaths - Chernobyl - and one that was messy, but no more than one or two non-employee injuries, at Three Mile Island. And NOT ONE "China Syndrome", even with San Onofre sitting RIGHT ON the San Andreas, or close enough to it that GreenPeace and the Sierra Club and who knows who else are all STILL up in arms!
We have three choices; drive our ever-smaller cars until we run out of petroleum, and say goodbye to EVERYTHING petrochemical (synthetic fabrics, plastics, many pharmaceuticals, some fertilizers, etc. - NOT just fuels); develop better solar cells and glue them to every horizontal or near-horizontal surface on Planet Earth, with BIG batteries connected, and surrender the night otherwise; OR, build the nuke plants, connect sea water distillation plants to them, make hydrogen to fuel cars, aircraft, and anything ELSE that can't plug into a wall or run on rails, and save the petroleum for plastic and lubricants until we can convert to coal for them.
It MAY or MAY NOT cost as much as oil-based fuels, etc.; but it WILL last a lot longer, and by NOT BURNING hydrocarbon fuels, think how much CLEANER the air will become - and ultimately, the water, your lungs, etc.

C'mon, folks, we've all got brains; let's USE them.