Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.
Electricity is so commonplace that no one gives any thought to not having access to it. Few give any consideration to how it is generated, but we are now being inundated with the most virulent nonsense about how wind or solar power is “clean” and practically “free.” Every week there’s some new proposal to cover the nation with wind farms and solar panels.
The problem for everyone who wants to get rich with these energy sources or those who think they are the answer to our energy needs is that neither wind, nor solar can ever power anything more than relatively small projects like a farm or a local stadium. A nation of more than three hundred million people, however, needs a lot of generation capacity.
All the razzle-dazzle of television advertising and public relations propaganda cannot justify the building of massive wind or solar farms. They are simply inadequate to the production of the electricity the nation requires now and in the future. The weird thing about T. Boone Pickens' pitch is that he talks about oil dependency to justify wind power, but vehicles are not powered by wind. Nor are they likely to be powered by liquified natural gas as Pickens suggests.
By contrast, the July edition of Energy Tribune devoted some of its pages to the comeback of nuclear power in America. What jumped out at me was co-editor Robert Bryce’s citation of the fact that, “The U.S. government has spent some $7 billion building a repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has declared that it “is never going to open” and is “not the answer to nuclear waste storage.”
Senator Reid recently said that, “Coal is making us sick. Oil is making us sick,” and then went on to blather insanely about global warming.
According to Bryce, “On June 3, the Department of Energy submitted an 8,600-page application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking approval of the Yucca Mountain site for waste storage. Just one day later, Nevada urged the agency to reject the application.” This is a glaring example of how to make sure America lacks the electrical energy it needs.
Throughout the debate over energy use, the Big Lie has been that industrial and other activities generate carbon dioxide emissions that, in turn, are causing global warming. Ergo, we have to radically alter every aspect of modern life to avoid the Earth’s destruction.
The problem with that is a decade-old cooling period that the Earth entered in 1998 and which is getting colder, not warmer. The other problem is the fact that the Earth has passed through periods in which the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere were much higher than they are today.
Since it is getting colder, we are going to need more electricity and other sources of energy to keep us warm in our homes, offices, schools, et cetera. We are going to have to burn coal, currently the major source of power, to generate electricity as well as the cheapest and most abundant. We will continue to use natural gas as well. All the hydroelectric sources have been identified and are in use at present.
That leaves nuclear. An Energy Tribune article by William E. Burchill serves up lots of information about the nuclear production of electrical energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear reactors are providing electricity to one billion people. Presently nuclear power provides twenty percent of America’s electricity needs, thanks to the 104 nuclear plants operating in the U.S.
Here’s something to keep in mind. “No U.S. plant worker or member of the public has ever been injured or killed by an accident caused by nuclear power.” Moreover, amidst the frenzy over CO2, nuclear is “an emissions-free source of electricity.”
There is a literal renaissance of nuclear energy in America and this is a good thing. The U.S. Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2030, U.S. demand will increase by 30 percent. This increase reflects a worldwide trend. Currently, China, India, Russia, South Korea, Pakistan, and Japan are in the process of building a total of thirty-five nuclear plants and other nations have announced plans.
The worldwide demand for more electricity is growing right along with population growth and the spurt of industrialization occurring in nations that have looked at the Western model and are now beginning to compete in the process called globalization. By mid-century, the demand for electricity will double or triple.
The elected leaders of America have been largely deaf and blind to our national needs, opposing electrical generation no matter what source is used. Resistance to nuclear energy was part of the environmental agenda, but these days their cries and lies are mostly about what they now call “dirty fuels,” oil and coal.
What can Americans do when we have loonies like Senator Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spouting nonsense and blocking efforts to meet current and future energy needs? One answer is almost too obvious. They and others can and should be voted out of office. They can be replaced!
Or maybe you want to wait while wind power, currently 0.77 percent of the sources of electricity energy, or solar power, about 0.01 percent, replaces coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power. Bundle up! You’re going to be very cold.
I don’t know what Reid is talking about when he says coal & oil are making us sick, but I do know they are dirty. I remember when I was a kid how the coal truck would come to our house and pour the coal into the basement. From the coal bin, we had an automatic feeder, which would send the coal to the furnace. I also remember how my granny would burn big lumps of coal in the fireplace at her home. The coal was black and dusty, but it kept us warm on those cold winter nights. There was also a story told at Christmas time that if you were a bad boy, Santa would leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The current Dem-speak makes me wonder how many voters even know what a piece of coal looks like. I doubt that very many do know. The same with oil. I remember my dad draining the dirty old oil from his car every few months. Now most people go to the Instant Oil center and the kids never get to see what oil looks, and feels, like. I think that if you have never had to clean something out from under your fingernails you should keep your mouth shut on the subject. So, Sen. Reid, I ask you, what do you know about coal and oil? You were born in 1939, so you ought to know more than what you are telling people now.
…and just how do you propose to safely dispose of the increasing piles of spent nuclear fuel with a half-life of tens of thousands of years? Yucca mountain? A quick google search reveals a multitude of problems there. And it was sure interesting to watch McCain tour the Fermi 2 plant a week ago, the site of incident documented in the book, “We Almost Lost Detroit.” Coal, gas, solar, and wind power plants don’t melt down and take whole cities with them.
I am not rabidly anti-nuke, but to pretend that nuclear power is a panacea unaccompanied by a host of pitfalls and potential disasters strikes me as either irresponsible or naive.
I was born and lived in Detroit for most of my life. That is where I learned that almost doesn’t count. The thing that is killing Detroit is the Democrats, starting with Coleman Young and ending with Kwame Kilpatrick.
My understanding of Newton’s law of conservation is that Uranium is taken out of the ground, concentrated, used as fuel giving up some of it’s energy as heat, and then eventually buried in the ground. Since this sequence gives up energy, there is less radioactivity after use than before. We are therefore just relocating the radioactive products after taking some of it’s energy. I acknowledge that there may be some problems, but after all these years of men dieing in coal mines, wars over resources, oil and gas well accidents, building bridges and skyscrapers. Etc., I would think that Nukes are a good bet.
Uh, Doc, the total volume of nuke waste of all the reactors, (incl. mil) since we started building them fits comforably inside 6 cattle cars.
So say it quadruples every 100 yrs. What’s the problem?
BTW, last 2 people I informed of this then responded (approximately) “China Syndrome!” So let me forestall that. Fuel is pelletized, so it will niether meltdown nor aquire critical mass, …although its not the correct isotope to go boom anyway…).
And I seriously doubt we’ll still be using fission in 100yrs, but we’ll be using fusion.
Then, too, there’s some even more exotic methods being investigated, some of which I am certain will pan out.
But not if we allow ourselves to be strangled by these anti-American Luddities for America Onlys
From Wikipedia: In France, as of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country’s main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country’s 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008, these plants produce 87.5% of both EDF’s and France’s electrical power production (of which much is exported), making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power (78.8%).
Exactly how does France dispose of all its spent nuclear fuel? Why is this an issue for the US (comment #2), but not a doomsday issue for France?
All these straw men anti-nuclear arguments remind me of the great debate in the Illinois Legislature in the late 1970s about allowing self service gasoline. Opponents claimed that people would be pumping gas while smoking cigarettes and blow up a lot of gas stations. Someone finally posed the question — they allow self service gas in 49 other states; how many times do we read about gas stations blowing up in Texas, Montana, South Carolina, etc?
Not every hypothetical issue is a real issue.
#2: Everything has risk. No one is saying that nuclear is without risk, only that its risk is manageable.
GriffithLea
Absolutely! Without taking a risk, Christopher Columbus would have stayed in Genoa. Neil Armstrong in Wapakoneta, so on and so on. Each year 48,000 people venture out in their automobiles and die on the road. Since nukes were first applied in 1945, killing 66,000 people in Hiroshima, a little extrapolation tells us that about 2 million people have expired on the roads of America. I don’t hear many people that are willing to give up their wheels. Not that it would help much. Before cars, many people died at home because they could not get to a doctor.
Re #2: About two billion years ago, a natural nuclear reactor formed in Oklo, Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
The waste produced didn’t leave the site. It stayed safe in the ground for two million millenia. So we know that nuclear waste can be stored safely for long periods time. The only questions are about details of which sites are most likely to work for that purpose. Yucca mountain looks pretty darn good.
(Of course, not everyone here agrees with those dates… :-> )
Is the dispute really about the “best” or “safest” form of energy? It seems that the most enlightened amongst us know what is in our, and the planet’s, greatest interests. Can’t we let the enlightened determine the forms and amounts of energy we are allowed? For the sake of the planet, please, don’t be obtuse. This is serious stuff.
Unfortunately, even the “enlightened” have personal and political agendas. That why we live in a representative republic and not socialist paradise — to avoid letting the gifted decide things for us in their view of our best interest.
[...] Continue reading article [...]