Comments on: Nuclear Ban in MN Lifted? Please Say it’s So

By: Matt Martin

Matt Martin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:57:10 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:11:32 +0000

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.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:00:59 +0000

The Wired article isn’t much better. Those with enivronmental concerns are written off as “the granola crowd” and “flannel wearers.”

By: Ollie Ox

Ollie Ox — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:49:38 +0000

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.

By: amuseinc

amuseinc — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:37:14 +0000

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.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:37:00 +0000

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

By: Demure One

Demure One — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:31:24 +0000

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?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:11:27 +0000

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

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:32 +0000

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

By: Matt Martin

Matt Martin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:47:17 +0000

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.