Letter to the editor:

Nuclear energy needed to close gap

Henry Schmid, Las Vegas

Wed, Aug 27, 2008 (2:01 a.m.)

Conspicuously absent from last week’s National Clean Energy Summit was the advancement of nuclear energy. The ambitious plan to have 20 percent of our power supplied by renewables still leaves a 10 percent deficit in our projected energy needs in that time period, which will have to be filled by nuclear or fossil energy sources.

Without nuclear power, we will be in a worse situation than we are in today, dependent on oil imports. The reserves of the North Sea, Mexico, Russia and even Saudi Arabia will be mostly exhausted, which points out the importance of additional drilling now in the United States.

Another cost not addressed is that renewable energy will also incur the cost of 100 percent backup fossil fuel or nuclear generation plants because sunlight and wind are not available 24/7. Instead of dismantling our dirty power plants, such as the one in Laughlin, we should keep them available for the days when renewable plants are unable to deliver power.

While we all recognize the need for renewable energy sources, it is important to know what this will cost so we do not adversely affect our economy. Sen. Harry Reid’s dog and pony show left a lot of questions unanswered.

Discussion: 18 comments so far…

By uddeboda

8/27/08 at 5:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

The bottom line to all of this energy question, is that the USA does NOT want to give up its reliance on fossil fuels. To He** with what the world thinks, the USA will do just as it pleases, like she always has done.
By thebs

8/27/08 at 8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

While I agree that nuclear energy will play a part in future supply, to say it was "conspicuously absent" is laughable, at best. Nuclear energy cannot, in any sane sense, be categorized as a "clean" energy.
By uddeboda

8/27/08 at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thebs,
Nuclear power is only clean in the sense that it does not use fossil fuels during the production of energy, whereas the fuel it does use is debateable
By thebs

8/27/08 at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yes, I just think the characterization of a power source which produces one of the most toxic substances known to man as "clean energy" is asinine.
By jfnance32

8/27/08 at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hundred of thousands of mirrors and windfarms in the middle of pristine wildness is not very "clean" either.

It makes nature look very ugly and most likely interferes with nature. I am sure some species will have a negative impact.

I am not sure what is worst.

.......All that crap everywhere or barrels of nuclear waste.
By PatriciaLV

8/27/08 at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

I'd have to go with the "barrels of nuclear waste" being worse.

Much, much, MUCH worse.

I don't understand why the waste can't be treated as they do in Europe. They've been doing it successfully for quite awhile. It may be that I just don't understand the technology (I don't) but someone help me out here .... why can't we do the same?
By neiman1

8/27/08 at 12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nancy Pelosi admitted on "Meet the Press" that she had a direct investment in T. Boone Pickens company. Now do you understand why we cannot drill or build nuclear? How much do you think Harry has in the firm, or like firms? This is a power grab and Billions grab. and we suffer the fight. Nancy Pelosi even said 3 times on that interview that Natural Gas was an alternative to fossil fuel. She doesn't even know natural gas IS a fossil fuel. She just gets flustered when they outed her on the hidden investment and her fake agenda.
By Energy4u

8/27/08 at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

What source of energy is the largest source of carbon free energy in the U.S.?

What source of energy accounts for 70% of emission free electricity in the U.S.?

What source of energy prevents emissions equal to that produced by 96% of the 130+ million automobiles in the U.S.?

What source of energy provides 125 times as much electricity to Nevada as solar power (keep in mind that Nevada is #1 Per Capita in the U.S. for solar)?

What source of energy has won praise from the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, and the Wildlife Habitat Council for its e activities which includes providing some of the best habitat for endangered wildlife and plants including the American crocodile,manatee and sturgeon to name a few?

What source of energy currently helps the U.S. avoid emitting 681.2 million metric tons of CO2 or 1,703 times as much as solar?

What source of energy still has over 90% percent of its energy left after it is used to generate power -- an energy source that can still be tapped into using new technology -- and energy source whose "waste" has the equivalent energy value of 9.5 billion barrels of oil or 13.6 times as much oil as is currently stored in the worlds largest oil reserve (the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve)?

What source of energy is now strongly supported by the founder of Greenpeace due to the fact that it is a clean source of electricity?

NUCLEAR

What about the waste?
What about the dump?

The "waste" isn't. In fact it is a huge stock of unused energy in the U.S. France, England and Japan use forms of a technology developed in the U.S. to recycle the waste.

The "dump" isn't. In fact it is an amazing engineered facility where solid ceramic pellets will be stored in a facility 1000 feet below the surface of the earth, 1000 feet above a closed hydrologic basin that ends in Death Valley.

What about transportation? Yucca Mountain is 90 miles from Vegas and the material will be transported around the northern side of the Nevada Test Site/Nellis complex and there have been 25,000 shipments of this material without a release of the contents.

Calling Nuclear "Clean" is accurate, hardly "asinine" as one writer condescendingly say's in virtually every mean spirited comment he/she makes.
By ksand99

8/27/08 at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Huh, that's funny. Nuclear waste is clean? So we can just put it anywhere, right? No worries?

LOL!!!! thebs is right, people who think nuclear waste is "clean" aren't working with a full deck!

And Energy4u says nuclear waste isn't waste? What is it, then? It is harmless?

Of course not! That is why this letter is asinine. Promoting nuclear energy as an alternative is one thing, but promoting it as "clean?" Yeah right!
By PatriciaLV

8/27/08 at 2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Well, why not? I've heard ads all over radio & TV promoting "clean-burning coal". (/sarcasm off)

Apparently there is a parallel universe that intrudes on the real world every now and again.

But I would love to see citations for the statements made by Energy4U. And I'd really love to know what his/her line of work might be. I have a hunch, but I'd like to hear it (as it were) from Energy4U.
By Energy4u

8/27/08 at 2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ksand: I did not suggest in any way that used fuel is "harmless." Rather, I presented facts which strongly make the case that nuclear is "clean." Furthermore, I presented information that also makes the case for nuclear being considered a renewable, although I didn't focus strongly on that element of the case for supporting nuclear. It is essentially renewable, because U.S. public policy and industry is transitioning from the current once through system where the fuel goes into the reactor and is then stored and never used again. To a system that takes advantage of the roughly 96% percent remaining energy in the material some call "waste." By using this material over and over in a closed system we have a virtually endless supply of energy -- particularly when you combine this with the very large known quantity of uranium resources in the world. All sources of energy, including nuclear, have safety and environmental issues which must be considered. By recycling nuclear fuel we will significantly reduce the hazard and amount of waste that must be permanently disposed at Yucca Mountain. An advantage of nuclear is that it doesn't have emissions in the traditional sense -- the emission is totally contained in the solid ceramic pellet. This pellet isn't dangerous when it goes into the reactor, but after it is used as fuel in the reactor for a couple year it is intensely radioactive, but completely contained in the pellet. The record for safely managing used fuel has been impeccable thanks to an extremely robust safety system. Thus, the "waste" has not been released in the environment and there has been no adverse impact on public health from nuclear while it has produced 20% of our electricity and far more in other countries such as France (80%). I call that "clean." You are certainly entitled to disagree, but the facts speak loudly and that is why the founder of Greenpeace and many environmentalist including myself so strongly support nuclear.
By Energy4u

8/27/08 at 2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Patricia: I'm a left leaning Democrat who was very active in the anti-nuclear movement in the 70's until I learned more about the technology and changed my views. All of the information I cited is readily available from objective sources on the internet a good start is wikipedia,the National Science Foundation, the Health Physics Society, academic oriented sources.

It is a very personal subject for me -- my wife wouldn't be alive without the very rapid advances in imaging and treatment technologies which are completely dependent on radionuclide's produced by reactors. One in three diagnostic and medical treatments in the U.S. depend on radioisotopes. Tens of thousands of lives are saved each year thanks to this technology. Not to mention the many other beneficial applications in smoke detectors, weld inspection, food safety you name it.
By charlesH

8/27/08 at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100 (1000s yrs)
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Desalination with Waste Heat____________No : Yes
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/tho...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah
By ksand99

8/27/08 at 3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

It all depends on how you look at it, Energy4u.

I look at solar and wind, see there are no toxic byproducts and judge it as being clean.

You see the toxic byproducts of nuclear energy and think it's clean.

It depends on your defnition of clean, really.

Does nuclear effect the environment as much as coal? No.

Does it create a byproduct that has to be contained/recycled/reused for thousands of years? Yes.

I just don't see windfarms causing catastrophic environmental damage like Chernobyl, either.

To me, that is not a "clean" source of energy. That was the reason for the summit at UNLV, for clean energy.
By PatriciaLV

8/27/08 at 3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

I understand, Future, & thank you. (Though I would view most Wikipedia entries with at least a bit of skepticism.) I will check those other sources to see what they have to say.

I admit to having significant trepidations when it comes to nuclear waste. And that's exactly what it is due to the lack of renewable facilities that we have. I have to wonder why anyone thinks that burying this stuff is such a great idea with the technology we have in use today.

What's most amazing to me is that no one ever seems to mention the military-grade waste that is also slated to be stored at Yucca, or the fact that the the waste that is slated to be stored has more than doubled since the original "approval", with nothing done to increase the storage capacity or the fact that the population in Southern Nevada (downwind of this dump - call it what it is) is more than five times what it was when the site was originally approved.

It seems to me that instead of spending so much money on Yucca that money could be much better spent on perfecting the "renewable" part of a nuclear power plant.

Call me a dreamer.
By Energy4u

8/27/08 at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

CharlesH: very interesting and thank you. I will look into this further -- I'm a fairly strong believer in the marketplace. Why hasn't this technology been developed on a commercial scale?

Also, existing commercial plants are very competitive with other base load forms of energy when it comes to water consumption. The Palo Verde plant in Arizona is the largest generating energy for well over 4 million people and it relies on gray water -- isn't located near a body of water like most nuclear plants.

Ksand: I'm a very big supporter of solar and wind. Both are important components to the energy mix in the U.S. and hopefully we will quickly get to the point where we have cost effective/environmentally safe storage systems so these sources can become base load electricity.

Mentioning Chernobyl in the same sentence as we are talking about nuclear technology in the U.S. just doesn't cut it -- totally different type of reactor, no containment structure and 100% different safety culture.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether nuclear deserves to be classified as "clean." I was at the Summit and very much enjoyed the discussion. Nuclear deserved a much bigger platform at the meeting, but such is life. Several speakers including President Clinton, T. Boone Pickens and Mayor Bloomberg pointed out that nuclear is clean -- so I was pacified. Later.
By Energy4u

8/27/08 at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Patricia: I urge you to tour Yucca -- it will be readily apparent that it in no way shape or form a "dump" or place where material will be "buried." It is an extremely sophisticated engineered facility.

The capacity is nothing more than a legislated number -- the program has been so delayed by intervention that the amount of material being temporarily stored keeps increasing (although it is still below the 70,000 metric tons indicated in the law). At the time Congress planned to authorize a second repository. The bottom line from a technical standpoint -- Yucca can safely handle far more material than the arbitrary amount set in law.

All of this will be rendered moot if we go forward with recycling (as we should and almost certainly will). Recycling will significantly reduce the volume below the amount set in law.

Regarding the downwind comment -- we are not downwind of Yucca. Lincoln County and Utah is and the material is a solid pellet. This is not the above ground weapons testing of the 50's we are talking about. There is no reasonable dispersal method via wind.

Yes material from the nuclear navy and the weapons complex requires disposal. No matter how you feel about those issues the fact of the matter is that the waste exists and it needs to be safely and securely disposed. The nuclear navy provides are most important strategic military assets. Those huge submarines and air craft carriers essentially go to the gas station just once -- thanks to the fact that they are nuclear fueled.
By Future2012

8/27/08 at 8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spent Nuclear fuel is a ceramic pellet encased in Ziroloy rods within 1' thick SS storage canisters within Yucca Mountain's 2" thick Alloy 22 - SB-575 (UNS N06022) encapsulation packages. So the issue of rad dose has alway been contained, contained, contained, and contained.

People who know the situation know this is not a problem.