Jay Tea has a good post over at Wizbank today on the subject of nuclear power and nuclear reactors. I agree completely that we need to build and use more nuclear power plants. The eco-nuts have stifled plans to build more plants in the U.S. for the better part of thirty years. And as Jay said, "Ted Kennedy's driving has killed more people than Three Mile Island has".
I still believe that the modern nuke technology is much safer than it used to be and well worth the risks considering the trade-offs. Think of all the coal that wouldn't be burned?
The opponents of nuclear power do a lot of hand-wringing about what to do with the nuclear waste. Doesn't Europe use a lot of nuclear power? Let's ask them how they deal w/ the nuclear waste. Liberals seem to want to look to Europe for guidance for everything else.
Wizbang On Nuclear Power: "New Hampshire has a nuclear power plant. The Seabrook Station was originally intended to have two reactors, but due to huge protests from the anti-nuclear crowd and economic necessities, only the first was completed. The incomplete containment dome sits next to it, a spectre of what might have been.
But with the increase in oil prices and the steadily rising demand for electricity, some people are looking at that second structure and wondering if the time has come to complete it."
Technorati Tags:
nuclear+energy nuclear+power nuclear+waste
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Wizbang - We Need More Nuclear Power
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
If you'd like an entertaining way to learn more about the myths and realities of nuclear power, check out the new techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry, written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me). This book provides an accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled, all within a story of intrigue. It is called “Rad Decision”, and is at RadDecision.blogspot.com. There is no cost to readers.
I agree with the idea that we need more nuclear power plants and also agree that part of the reason for a thirty year hiatus in plant construction was organized opposition.
It is interesting, however, to really explore some of the possible means, motives, and money behind that opposition. The readers of the Amateur Economist might have more fun than most people thinking about this concept.
Though many people point to "environmentalists" or "eco-nuts" (in your words), think about who really benefits when an economically competitive alternative energy supply option is forced out of the market.
That's right, the existing suppliers of other energy fuels. As many point out, the cost of oil and natural gas would be a lot lower if had more nuclear power plants, and the US would be less dependent on foreign (or domestic for that matter) oil.
Gee, do you think that the guys that make a living selling oil, coal, and gas cannot do the math and figure out that nuclear fission reactors take away a huge chunk of their revenue and political clout?
When I have spoken to casual market participants about this concept, they ask why the oil and gas companies would not simply take over nuclear fission?
The answer is a bit complicated, but can be understood if you understand that oil, coal and gas are all about finding, extracting, moving and processing huge masses of substances that burn.
Fission energy uses tiny quantities of a different material that reacts in a process that takes some education to understand and use safely. Equipment designed for the fossil industry is generally useless in the nuclear industry, and the skill set of the people is also quite incompatible.
To a large extent, nuclear fission power is more about human intellect than about control of key patches of land. You cannot force people to do well in the nuclear business, but you can impose dictatorial rule on areas that are rich in fossil fuel resources.
It is an interesting, fun and extremely important intellectual exercise to understand just where the opposition to nuclear energy comes from and why is has - so far - been fairly successful despite all of the technical advantages. It is hard to fight an enemy if you do not understand who it is, you can end up aiming your fire at a distraction.
Rod Adams - Atomic Insights Blog atomicinsights.blogspot.com
Thanks for posting Rod. Those are interesting thoughts. And an interesting angle to think about. I can see "big-oil" to some extent not wanting competition, much as I would see the same in any other industry.
I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see the rent-seeking behavior you mention via some level of lobbying by current energy-related concerns.
The only thing I see though that still concerns me is that most of what I personally have seen (and I'm certainly a neophyte on this topic, I'm sure there's plenty I'm not privy to) is that every time I see any organized protest of nuclear power it's always by hard-core leftists, marxists, sierra-club, greenpeace types. And these organizations/groups are also very anti-"big-oil". There's certainly no love lost between those groups and the current oil companies.
But you do make some good points. I bet there's more to learn by seeing who is actively lobbying on these topics.
Chris
Chris:
I think you would be very surprised to see the donation lists for most mainstream environmental groups.
In a big game, deception is a fundamental tactic.
Though provoking question - If you happen to be a big oil company with well established production, how does a group that fights new oil production affect your profitability?
Second question - suppose you control oil, coal, or gas reserves for any one of a variety of reasons including a family history of bloody takeover, an accident of geography, or simply good investment strategy. You know the extent of your reserves are limited and desire to optimize the profitability of selling them during your lifetime so that you can enjoy the things that the money can buy. How would you react to the introduction of a far cheaper and cleaner source of energy?
Chris Meisenzahl wonders how "hard-core leftists, marxists, sierra-club, greenpeace types" can be fossil fuel shills. There is a simple and wholly persuasive answer: TAXES.
When fossil fuels sell for more than they cost to lift and distribute, government takes much of the surplus value, cf. this OPEC document (PDF format). When those fuels sell for less, government takes its cut anyway. Right off the top.
"And these organizations/groups are also very anti-"big-oil" ..." -- yes, in exactly the same way the privileged classes of 19th-century England were anti-coal. They profited from it, but despised those who got its dust on themselves. Tradesmen enter at the rear; no inquest is necessary, for the corpse is merely that of a collier.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Post a Comment