Posted By: raymond | Jul 31st, 2007 @ 7:37 PM
page 1 of 1
Comments: 7 | Views: 4871

The US Nuclear Power industry appears to be on the brink of a revivial.


The Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama. The U.S. nuclear industry plans to build 19 new plants at $4 billion to $5 billion each. (Tennessee Valley Authority, via Bloomberg News)



"...The provision, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, has the potential to dramatically expand the U.S. nuclear industry, which plans to build 19 new power plants at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use "clean coal" technology and renewable fuels.

The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support at least some expansion of nuclear power. ..."


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/31/business/nuke.php


Nuclear power plant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPPrN1nMeBQ


Nuclear Power in China

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.htm

Westinghouse signs nuclear plant deal with China

"...U.S., European and Russian suppliers of nuclear power technology have all been vying to land contracts in China, where as many as 32 nuclear plants are expected to be built by 2020 as it tries to meet surging power demands while cutting emissions and reducing reliance on imported oil. Both American and French politicians lobbied Beijing hard on behalf of their companies.

China is the world's second-largest power consumer after the United States and the third-largest oil importer...."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07205/803983-100.stm


U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact

"After two years of controversial negotiations, the United States and India yesterday announced a deal on peaceful nuclear cooperation that allows trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel, permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program...."

"This is perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in the 60 years of our relationship," said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, in announcing the deal. ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702360.html?hpid=moreheadlines



US Nuke Rebirth

"...Currently, 104 reactors supply about 20 percent of U.S. electricity demand. The last was licensed in 1978. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for around 30 more over the next few years as demand for power increases and the cost of fossil fuels rises in price and uncertainty.

Worldwide, 438 nuclear reactors in 30 countries provide 16 percent of electricity demand, according to the World Nuclear Association, which estimates that demand will double between 2004 and 2030...."


http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/07/30/analysis_us_nuke_rebirth_to_block_bombs/4157/

Nuclear Saviors:

How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry



http://www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html


Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants

"...The public’s attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy “to prevent global warming.” ..."



http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/


Nuclear power is the force behind global warming!

Al Gore's major speech at New York University:

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world's energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let's assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size -- extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand -- and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role.

http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-gores-speech.html

So that is why Al Gore goes on and on about global warming.

I have always favored nuclear power plants over coal-fired power plants. Welcome aboard Al.

The Tao of Star Wars

"The Force is what gives the Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."
http://exn.ca/starwars/taoism.cfm


May the force be with you Big Al. Wink



Run Al, Run.

Cool

Don't you just love these straight talking politicians. Wink

JohnAskew
JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Wasn't it you, your Raymondness, who revealed Maggie Thatcher as the progenitor of this rally to reason fashioned in the guise of technological human excess?

Tools of the trade:

knee reflex hammer
mstefan
mstefan
Windows SDK coders do it without a .NET

What we really need to do is get off the dime and develop workable, large-scale fusion that makes economic sense. The idea that we're still burning dead dinosaurs for fuel in the 21st century is ridiculous.

 

JohnAskew
JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater
I thought fusion was still too hard to contain?

Sure, it will better fission! It is funded to some extent... ?
mstefan
mstefan
Windows SDK coders do it without a .NET
JohnAskew wrote:
I thought fusion was still too hard to contain?

Sure, it will better fission! It is funded to some extent... ?


I'm not a nuclear physicist so I'm not sure what the issue is on the technical end of things. My layman's understanding is that they're able to create controlled fusion reactions, but it requires so much energy to maintain the reaction that it's not a cost-effective means of actually producing energy yet.

There is money being put into fusion research, but I get the sense it's way down near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of priorities. More focus seems to be on things like biofuels.
page 1 of 1
Comments: 7 | Views: 4871
Microsoft Communities