Comments on: Nuclear power: An inconvenient solution? http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/10/05/nuclear-power-an-inconvenient-solution/ This blog is about the impact of business on society. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:43:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Tom Konrad http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/10/05/nuclear-power-an-inconvenient-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-283724 Tom Konrad Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:01:40 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=2175#comment-283724 I read the report on energy sprawl, and Sen. Alexander is misinterpreting it. The "gold standard" for land use according to the report is not nuclear power (although they do look good on a land-use basis), but development of renewable energy on already disturbed lands, such as brown fields and rooftop solar. And the nice thing about rooftop solar... it costs about the same as nuclear or coal with carbon sequestration (depending on who's doing the estimating) and does not come with any proliferation risks. And most of us that biofuels are a bad idea all along, but nuclear is not yet a substitute for liquid fuels. At least we agree that we need to move to electric powered cars, such as his PHEV. I read the report on energy sprawl, and Sen. Alexander is misinterpreting it. The “gold standard” for land use according to the report is not nuclear power (although they do look good on a land-use basis), but development of renewable energy on already disturbed lands, such as brown fields and rooftop solar. And the nice thing about rooftop solar… it costs about the same as nuclear or coal with carbon sequestration (depending on who’s doing the estimating) and does not come with any proliferation risks.

And most of us that biofuels are a bad idea all along, but nuclear is not yet a substitute for liquid fuels. At least we agree that we need to move to electric powered cars, such as his PHEV.

]]> By: luke http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/10/05/nuclear-power-an-inconvenient-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-283702 luke Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:45:29 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=2175#comment-283702 Two other points appear to me to be vital in this debate: (1) What timespan are we thinking about? Given that nuclear energy creates waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of year, it is only a matter of time (or, "the time discount rate") until it has the largest energy sprawl. Since no country I am aware of has a functioning site to leave the waste, we don't know how fast this will be, or how expensive! Thus no one can claim that nuclear provides "cheap carbon-free power", unless they make explicit the calculations about how much servicing and defending nuclear waste will cost for the next few hundred thousand years. (2) Uranium mines are huge. Land-use is particularly impressive for stocking the tailings (uranium considered too low-grade for processing but by no means inoffensive), since uranium enrichment is such a volume-intensive process. The environmental impact of this is considerable. (Writing from France, I know a little about the situation in Niger, where mining for french nuclear power is in the process of seriously poisoning water reserves and endangering livelihoods in large parts of the country.) Two other points appear to me to be vital in this debate:

(1) What timespan are we thinking about? Given that nuclear energy creates waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of year, it is only a matter of time (or, “the time discount rate”) until it has the largest energy sprawl. Since no country I am aware of has a functioning site to leave the waste, we don’t know how fast this will be, or how expensive! Thus no one can claim that nuclear provides “cheap carbon-free power”, unless they make explicit the calculations about how much servicing and defending nuclear waste will cost for the next few hundred thousand years.

(2) Uranium mines are huge. Land-use is particularly impressive for stocking the tailings (uranium considered too low-grade for processing but by no means inoffensive), since uranium enrichment is such a volume-intensive process. The environmental impact of this is considerable. (Writing from France, I know a little about the situation in Niger, where mining for french nuclear power is in the process of seriously poisoning water reserves and endangering livelihoods in large parts of the country.)

]]> By: Louis Tenenbaum http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/10/05/nuclear-power-an-inconvenient-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-283699 Louis Tenenbaum Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:56:30 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=2175#comment-283699 How is it that Republicans are in favor of government subsidizing huge business to create expensive, dangerous and inefficient nuclear plants yet oppose so vehemently government helping individual Americans with their healthcare? Why is there no calm logic in the midst of knees jerking all over the place? What is so attractive about an anti-people agenda? How is it that Republicans are in favor of government subsidizing huge business to create expensive, dangerous and inefficient nuclear plants yet oppose so vehemently government helping individual Americans with their healthcare? Why is there no calm logic in the midst of knees jerking all over the place? What is so attractive about an anti-people agenda?

]]>