MinnPost reports some great news:
Legislative hearings will be held in early 2009 on whether to lift Minnesota’s 16-year ban on building new nuclear power plants, a move spurred by policies to reduce carbon emissions linked to global warming.
…
Hilty has told House authors of a measure to lift the nuclear ban, DFL Reps. Tom Huntley of Duluth of Tim Mahoney of St. Paul, that he would hear their bill. Prettner Solon said her committee would honor a request to hear the bill, which Dille said will be made.
Revived interest in nuclear power has been seen in Minnesota and elsewhere as policies advance to reduce emissions of carbon, which is linked to global warming. Most of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal-fired plants, which — along with cars and other vehicles — emit the preponderance of carbon linked to climate change.
Look, nobody’s going to pretend that nuclear power plants are a perfect, no catch solution to our energy needs, but one thing’s for certain: they’re the best mass-production green energy available. If you’re comparing coal and nuclear as far as carbon emissions go, well, there’s just no comparison. Nuclear = green, and everyone needs to get their tails out from between their legs and get behind this. We need to lower carbon emissions fast, and this is far and away the best way to do it. Of course any review of nuclear has to pay special attention to safety and waste disposal, but these should not preclude having an honest discussion; let’s hope we get one.
Loading ...
Sweet. Let’s hope this happens and pray that those Dems who hate this idea (and boy, do they ever) don’t start marching in the streets.
If it goes through, this’ll be a pretty controversial act for the gubenatorial race.Personally, I won’t support any Dem who’s against it.
Matt, if you want an honest discussion, you might want to start by looking in the mirror. Nuclear = Green? Says who? Not environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. The legislators behind this aren’t environmentalists.
This is just greenwashing by the nuclear industry.
“Of course any review of nuclear has to pay special attention to safety and waste disposal.”
The waste disposal issue has always been the biggest drawback for nuclear power. Paying “special attention” doesn’t solve the problem. They have been paying “special attention” to it since nuclear power first came into play, and its still as much of a problem as it always was.
Matt,
I’d like to give you a lot of credit for backing nuclear power and bucking the people (usually on the left side of the political system) who oppose more nuclear power. You’re right that nuclear power is clean, efficient and can produce sufficient quantities of power for our country.
Yes, there are issues regarding what to do with the spent fuel rods. But I find it very interesting that European nations like France and Germany get the vast majority of their power from nuclear energy and don’t have the storage problems we do in the U.S. The reason, of course, is that many countries re-process the spent rods and re-use them.
I hope that the legislature actually considers and passes this issue on the merits instead of cow-towing to special interests.
Bluntly, this is just too complex to leave up to sound bites and media spin. I can see both sides of the issue and would like to know the long term and short term implications to Minnesota. Face it the immediate reaction is going to be to stiffen positions instead of look for compromise.
Talk about a thorny issue. Before this gets into the political mudfight arena, don’t you think we should be having a “Minnesota-only” scholarly review. (Yeah, I know I’m just thinking here.) A set of town meetings where each side presents its’ ideas followed by a referendum might be a good idea. Some way to discuss this in an open and sensible manner may be too much to ask for but that is what is needed.
Right on. I think that environmentalists need to be open to nuclear power as an alternative to coal until we’ve got better long-term solutions. I would rather have new nuclear power plants open than new coal plants. Nuclear is the best option we’ve got right now, and taking a break from building power plants for the next 10 years is not an option.
“…they’re the best mass-production green energy available.”
If that’s true, place your head firmly between your knees, and kiss it goodbye, ‘cause we’re all screwed.
If it’s wrong for this generation to enact fiscal policy that leaves massive debt for future generations to fix, then it’s wrong for this generation to generate readioactive waste that our children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children will have to deal with.
Nuclear energy is the epitome of conspicuous consumption without thought of the impact.
And beyond the moral arguments of creating a mess someone else will have to deal with, there’s the economic:
nuclear energy cannot compete without massive public subsidy. MASSIVE.
Nuclear is morally wrong, and economically uncompetitive.
“nuclear energy cannot compete without massive public subsidy. MASSIVE.”
You could say that about any green fuel source. Fact is, nuclear energy is a lot like democracy. Its the absolute worst system out there, except for all the other ones.
“Its the absolute worst system out there, except for all the other ones.”
Well, that’s simply not true. Wind and solar are much more green than nuclear.
In deciding what is green and what isn’t, why do you guys ignore what the environmentalists say, and rely instead on what the nuclear industry says? Next you guys will by shilling for “clean coal.”
As anyone can see from just a few messages… there is no one answer to this problem of energy & environment. So what combination or solutions makes the best sense in both short term and long term ways. I must admit that without some rational way to deal with nuclear waste, that solution has to be moved back on the list. Without adequate technology to deal with carbon emissions from coal-fired plants… move back please. Wind and solar need study and technology advances but won’t get either if smothered by coal or nuclear. Geothermal, hydro and well that internal combustion engine sitting in front of every house on the block are issues too.
All the stupid and simple ideas got us here… now what do we do? Hopefully we let smart people work on this instead of the morons we normally listen to… because lots of oxen are getting gored in this one.
Zach, with all due respect, no you can’t.
For instnce, take the issue of liability insurance - by act of congress, and I forget which one, nuclear power doesn’t need it.
Probably ‘cause it can’t get it; and even if it could, it couldn’t afford it.
Can you imagine the conversation, with your friendly State Farm rep?
“Hi, I’d like to get a policy for a nuke plant in Monticello. I’ll need to cover for damage everwhere downwind for, oh, say, 500, maybe a thousand miles…”
Here’s the deal: the only reason why nukes are remotely economically competitive, is because they don’t have to buy what virtually 99.999999 of all other businesses have to buy: liability insurance.
When nuclear plants have to do what every other business has to do, and that’s insure for accidents, then talk to me about nukes.
SORRY THIS IS LONG, BUT PLEASE SKIM BEFORE FURTHER COMMENTS:
A few responses. First of all, we’ve had nearly 50 years to research the pros and cons of nuclear and, guess what, the panel’s in and nuclear’s not so bad.
Wired did a very thorough article on the subject and came away evangelists; take a read:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
Here are some excerpts (Dan, this responds to some of your concerns):
Environmentalists
“Some of the world’s most thoughtful greens have discovered the logic of nuclear power, including Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain’s Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth (see “Green vs. Green,” page 82). Western Europe is quietly backing away from planned nuclear phaseouts. Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. China’s new nuke plants - 26 by 2025 - are part of a desperate effort at smog control.”
Solar and Wind
“Solar power doesn’t look much better. Its number-one problem is cost: While the price of photovoltaic cells has been slowly dropping, solar-generated electricity is still four times more expensive than nuclear (and more than five times the cost of coal).
…
“Wind is more promising, which is one reason it’s the lone renewable attracting serious interest from big-time equipment manufacturers like General Electric. But even though price and performance are expected to improve, wind, like solar, is inherently fickle, hard to capture, and widely dispersed. And wind turbines take up a lot of space; Ausubel points out that the wind equivalent of a typical utility plant would require 300 square miles of turbines plus costly transmission lines from the wind-scoured fields of, say, North Dakota. Alternatively, there’s California’s Altamont Pass, where 5,400 windmills slice and dice some 1,300 birds of prey annually.”
Nuclear around the World
“By contrast, nuclear power is thriving around the world despite decades of obituaries. Belgium derives 58 percent of its electricity from nukes, Sweden 45 percent, South Korea 40, Switzerland 37 percent, Japan 31 percent, Spain 27 percent, and the UK 23 percent. Turkey plans to build three plants over the next several years. South Korea has eight more reactors coming, Japan 13, China at least 20. France, where nukes generate more than three-quarters of the country’s electricity, is privatizing a third of its state-owned nuclear energy group, Areva, to deal with the rush of new business.”
2 Putt: I agree that the waste is a problem, but it’s not as conspicuous as you say:
“But throwing waste into a black hole at Yucca Mountain isn’t such a great idea anyway. For one thing, in coming decades we might devise better disposal methods, such as corrosion-proof containers that can withstand millennia of heat and moisture. For another, used nuclear fuel can be recycled as a source for the production of more energy. Either way, it’s clear that the whole waste disposal problem has been misconstrued. We don’t need a million-year solution. A hundred years will do just fine - long enough to let the stuff cool down and allow us to decide what to do with it.
…
“Here’s a fun fact: Spent nuclear fuel - the stuff intended for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain - retains 95 percent of its energy content. Imagine what Toyota could do for fuel efficiency if 95 percent of the average car’s gasoline passed through the engine and out the tailpipe. In France, Japan, and Britain, nuclear engineers do the sensible thing: recycle. Alone among the nuclear powers, the US doesn’t, for reasons that have nothing to do with nuclear power”
Look, my point is this: If you want to talk about lack of morality, don’t start with nuclear power. We have a climate crisis that needs to be addressed in a serious way over the next half-century and it needs to start with a major curbbing of CO2 emissions. We simply can’t afford to keep building coal power plants. Solar is certainly not up to the challenge, and neither is wind (on a mass scale), but nuclear can provide our electricity for the same cost (on the long-term; yes plants cost a lot to build, but the long-term costs make it even with coal given modern technology) as coal with nearly negligible direct emissions.
If you’re talking about the morality of leaving problems for future generations, we’re morally bankrupt if we continue to build CO2 spouting coal plants when we have a viable, proven technology that can help (in a significant way) save the planet for our children.
Matt, thanks for the article. Some very good points but some problems too, especially in discounting wind and solar as alternatives.
Wind turbines only take up a lot of space if the land isn’t used for anything else - which isn’t what happens. The turbines have to be spaced apart, but the “footprint” of each turbine is only a fraction of the area needed. The turbines are frequently placed on land that was already being used for grazing and farming.
We should definitely look at nuclear power as an option, but take a keen interests in its real costs. Right now, the nuclear power industry says it can’t build new plants without massive loan guarantees. This provoked objections from conservative taxpayer watchdog groups when some in the Senate tried to include loan-guarantees in the Energy bill:
““Taxpayers should not be required to finance billions in risky loan guarantees,” states a letter that [Taxpayers for Common Sense], the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste jointly sent to Congress last week.”
http://thehill.com/business — lobby/nuclear-advocates-try-to-clear-obstacles-2007-11-08.html
And then there’s another factor: fuel for the reactors. Yesterday’s CQPolitics article raised the question:
…But few people — and it would seem no Washington-based policy makers — are talking about the possibility that there might not be enough reactor fuel to satisfy the rapidly rising global demand.
It’s already clear that worldwide production of electricity by all methods is likely to double during the next two-and-a-half decades. That will be mostly driven by rising calls for power in the developing world, particularly India and China — the same countries that are straining the supplies of fossil fuels.
A joint report last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency repeated that assessment, and noted that if just 10 percent of the increased global demand for electricity is met by construction or expansion of nuclear power plants, the global capacity for nuclear energy would double. That would impose a corresponding doubling in the requirement for enriched uranium and other nuclear plant fuels, and neither current inventories nor the ensured production of new fuel might be able to meet it.
There seems to be a view that nuclear power — aside from the prohibitive cost of design and environmental mitigation — is a relatively cost-free resource. That’s not true at all….
Go read the rest:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002891004
Basically there’s no silver bullet for energy policy. It’ll be a complex portfolio approach. Not particularly good for campaign slogans.
So I am wondering if those who want more nuclear plants have any thoughts about what we should be doing with the spent rods. Would it be O.K. if we stored it in your basements?
Of course, the damned radioactivity is going to last a lot longer than you do, so maybe that wouldn’t really be fair to your great-great-great-great grandchildren.
Or of course we could leave the pernicious radioactivity behind when you or your progeny sell the house, as long as you put it down on one of those full-disclosure statements that you leave on the table at the open house.
Matt, interesting post. I would add only that we can’t look to any one source as a solution to current or future energy needs. Nuclear power should be part of a mix of other solutions, including wind and solar power, and tidal power in coastal areas.
The other point I would add is that security is going to be an especial concern around nuclear power plants.
This sounds crazy but, why can’t we send our nuclear waste into to space?
Send it on a 4 year journey to Sun. Whatever.
Marc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_disaster
I think you can fill in the blanks.
If you think CO2 is an issue and that it should be addressed, one certainly has to look at power production (incidentally facing rapidly rising demand) and NO SERIOUS PLAN to address CO2 in power production can even be considered without making (near zero emissions) nuclear a major component.
Wind, conservation, efficiency, other renewables etc. can all play a part but for baseload power at the levels needed to meet demand from not to 2030, your real options are clean coal or nuclear (or a combination).
Great discussion, not much to add. The reason we can’t easily send radioactive waste into space is because launches with rockets are inherently risky, and we’d rather not take the risk of spewing radioactive waste over a wide area at high altitudes. The case may be alerted if we develop magnetic catapult technology (quite a bit less sci-fi than it once was). Generally speaking, once you accelerate an object to escape velocity it’s not going to come down as long as it’s pointed at the sky, and if you do it on the right vector, it’ll go into the Sun.
But right now we can’t do that, and rockets aren’t an option.
Boom = very, very VERY bad.
“Here’s the deal: the only reason why nukes are remotely economically competitive, is because they don’t have to buy what virtually 99.999999 of all other businesses have to buy: liability insurance.”
So all we have to do is liquidate the plaintiff’s bar and our energy troubles are solved.
Randy’s point about security is a good one, and it brings up another, more fundamental question about energy planning and construction.
Do we go with centralized, big plants, or create distributed networks for creation and transmission of energy?
Wind, solar, and smaller biomass/waste plants at manufacturing plants that encourage companies to monetarize waste streams by selling excess generation or steam heat from their plants can add up — reducing the need for big plants. And like the distributed network Baran proposed for the ARPAnet, there’s no one central point for disrupting energy production and distribution. Same principle.
I don’t think that there’s any doubt that we should continue to investigate into other methods of both energy production and energy distribution; clearly there’s no single right answer. But right now, at this very crucial point in time, there’s simply no single better way to reduce CO2 emissions in energy production than move to nuclear. Sure, wind, solar, biomass, and others are all promising, but none even approach the cost/scale that we need to start replacing coal plants. And, I’m sorry, but we don’t have the time right now to wait and see if they pan out.
Nuclear’s a mature technology (just look at Europe), storage isn’t a huge problem anymore (rods can be recycled, they are only significantly radioactive for a bit over 100 years, on-site storage has actually worked, and newer technologies like carbon-balls allow for nuclear fuel that can be stored anywhere after it cools), the cost is almost on par with coal (again, long-term), company’s know how to do this (both American and otherwise), security’s not a huge problem, and it’s zero emissions. But most of all: IT’S READY TO GO NOW. The only thing holding it back is an unusual and archaic mindset promulgated in America by 3-mile island and misguided environmentalists.
Again, we need better technologies and a wide assortment of them to address climate change and changing energy needs; but for right now, nuclear is a pretty damn good hold over. And we don’t have time to wait.
I know I already posted it, but the Wired article does a good job with all of this:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
There are tons more articles that say the same thing in more and less complex terms, but the above is recent and accessible.
There may be no emissions from the actual power-making proces, but nuclear power is not emission free.
“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.
Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm
There may be no emissions from the actual power-making proces, but nuclear power is not emission free.
“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.
Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm
Uh…waste heat is also a major concern. Indeed many nuclear plants in Europe needed to be shut down during a recent heat-wave; the temperature in the rivers that were absorbing the waste heat from the nuclear plants were getting too high to support aquatic life. Here in Minnesota when the Monticello nuclear power plant had to be shut down hundreds of fish died from thermal shock. At some point we are going to have to talk about energy conservation. Just how much heat can the mighty Mississippi absorb?
Matt, that Wired article is a steaming pile of crap. Concerned environmentalists are referred to as “the granola crowd” and “flannel wearers.” I see with your reference to “misguided environmentalists,” you have taken up the same approach. What happened to the honest discussion you wanted? If I understand your position, the answer to the waste problem is that there just isn’t a problem, and those stupid hippies don’t know what they are talking about, right?
There may be no emissions from the actual power-making proces, but nuclear power is not emission free.
“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.
Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm
I wonder if tying research and development of alternative energy to the building of nuclear plants may be an answer. The one thing I am afraid of is that we go off half cocked on nuclear and fail to follow up on other methods.
The fact is that the internal combustion engine and petroleum are kind of a technological dead-end. It was pretty smart for the industrial revolution and 1800-1900’s. It killed other technologies and research for a long while, but now is coming to seemingly an end of its useful life.
The idea of distributive power is a strong one. A local manufacturer, CPG, American jobs even, sells a bunch of products for this. China, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries see it as a smart way to bring electricity to rural areas without the long transmission lines and other infrastructure. These power plants then use local source; oil, coal, wood whatever to run the generators. Not exactly carbon friendly but neither is huge coal firing plants in the hinterlands with lots of transmission lines.
Matt — you haven’t addressed the issue of finding fuel for the reactors. Labeling those who ask for prudent planning as “misguided” and “archiac” is no substitute for critical thinking, nor is fear-mongering statements like “we don’t have time to wait.” Finally, relying on one article in a popular magazine isn’t particularly convincing either.
There’s an argument to be made for looking at nuclear, but you’re not doing much for it — rather, you’re assembling a collection of hack attacks.
The Wired article isn’t much better. Those with enivronmental concerns are written off as “the granola crowd” and “flannel wearers.”
Wind and solar energy just don’t produce enough KW/h to produce the energy we need. There simply isn’t enough room to build solar collectors and wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity as building nuclear power plants. Even if there was enough room, we still have the NIMBY problem as seen in places like our own North Shore and off the coast of Massachusetts where people who live there have blocked such projects. The other problem is wind turbines don’t store energy and only produce when the wind is blowing sufficiently to spin the turbines. Wind turbines also need to go offline periodically for maintenance, etc.
Nuclear energy can produce more than enough energy to meet our needs. As for the waste, we could actually reprocess (ie. recycle) the same fuel rods instead of storing them as waste.
Ollie Ox, I do think that your objection about finding fuel is one of the more convincing objections put forth in these comments. I will not pretend that I’ve read enough on that subject to comment accurately and will gladly concede that it is something that needs to be addressed.
I do think, however, that I’ve gone to some length in these comments to fairly address issues people have raised. Obviously, I can’t pretend to have answers for everything, but I think I’ve shown critical thinking here… at least a level that amounts to critical thinking in the context of blog comments.
As for your objections to two words I used, I wasn’t saying that those who call for prudent planning are archaic thinkers or misguided environmentalists, what I did say is that there’s a certain mindset that those two groups have done much to foster. I was addressing a mindset, not the objectors here.
And finally, I’m not trying to fear-monger when I say there’s little time to wait, that’s just a fact. I’m sorry if you see it as the former, but fear-mongering connotes that there is an intent to strike fear; my intent is little more than placing events in context. If you think my assessment of timing is inaccurate, please, put forth an argument, but please do not blindly accuse me of fear mongering.