Re: Whatever Happened to Nuclear Power?

The best place to build a FUSION reactor is 93,000,000 miles away from
the consumer... It's called the SUN...

Robert Stirling invented a heat engine in 1816... it can use focused
sunlight to move pistons by expansion and contraction of a gas...
driving an electricity generator...
Giant power plant for Southern California Edison now under
construction.
read more:
http://gregvanderlaan.com/solar.aspx

Schatz Energy Labs at Humboldt State University does research into
hydrogen fuel cells... basically, a better battery...
read more:
http://gregvanderlaan.com/ecofair.aspx






On Nov 20, 5:35 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312210,00.html

Whatever Happened to NuclearPower?
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

At the turn of the millennium, nuclearpowerappeared to be on its way out,
like land-line telephones.

But the nukes industry appears to be in vogue again, thanks in large part to
fears of climate change.

"Global warming has definitely been a big help to us," said Don Hintz, vice
president of the American Nuclear Society.

Nuclearpowerplants produce no significant quantity of greenhouse gases, in
contrast to coal-firedpowerplants, which account for 35 percent of U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions.

France gets roughly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear and is said
to have the cleanest air in the industrialized world, according to coverage
of the topic by CBS News' "60 Minutes."

Politicians and, ironically, some environmentalists have been calling for
new nuclear reactors. In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
received its first application in 30 years for a license to build a new
plant, and there are about 20 more applications in the pipeline.

The InternationalAtomicEnergy Agency recently forecasted that the current
global nuclear capacity of 370 gigawatts will grow by 20 to 80 percent in
the next two decades.

However, some feel this so-called "nuclear renaissance" is based on false
promises.

"We've known for a decade that nuclearpowerplants are the worst route to
go to solve climate change," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for
Greenpeace.

The nuclear industry has in the past been plagued by cost overruns and
construction delays, Riccio said. Whatever good more nuclear plants could
bring to the environment will come too late and at too high a cost.

"A dollar invested in renewable energy will go seven to 10 times farther
towards reducing greenhouse gases," Riccio told LiveScience.

Debate shift

The battle for and against nuclearpowerin the United States has been
ongoing for decades, becoming especially heated after the accidents at Three
Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986.

The main concerns have been the threat of an accidental radiation leak and
the lack of long-lasting disposal sites for radioactive waste.

But in the past five years, the debate has shifted in light of new fears
over global warming.

According to recent figures from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 103
commercial nuclear plants in the United States generate nearly 75 percent of
all emission-free electricity, which includes renewable technologies and
hydroelectricpowerplants.

"We're supportive of wind and other renewable energies," but addressing
climate change will likely require some fraction of nuclearpower, Hintz
said.

In terms of radioactive waste, the United States has more than 50,000 tons
of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.

Although this constitutes a small fraction of the nearly 2 billion tons of
carbon dioxide emitted per year from the nation's coal-fired plants, most of
this highly radioactive waste is stored temporarily in aboveground sites,
where it could contaminate groundwater or be used as a terrorist target.

There are hopes for a cleaner nuclear future: Fusion reactors - in which
nuclei are combined - have the potential to provide almost limitless energy
without all the toxic waste associated with traditional fission reactors.

However, despite continued efforts, fusionpoweris still far from a
reality.

"We really don't have time to chase around this Holy Grail," Riccio said.

Politically born again

The NEI estimates that current nuclearpowercosts less than 2 cents per
kilowatt-hour, cheaper than coal-generatedpower. However, Riccio said this
price does not include huge debts leftover from earlier construction.

"The first 75 reactors in the United States had $100 billion in cost
overruns." Riccio said.

The nuclear industry is hoping to avoid some of the problems that arose in
the past with the help of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The 2005 legislation offers billions of dollars in incentives to the
industry to start new construction. It also allows reactor builders to apply
for a combined operating license, which covers construction and operation.

Before, builders needed two separate licenses, a fact that left certain
finished reactors unused for years.

"The beauty of [the new licensing] is that all delays will be at the front
end before you spend billions of dollars," Hintz said.

If all goes smoothly, the NRC licenses will be awarded in three to five
years and the first reactors will go on-line around 2015, Hintz said.

.

Quantcast