Zogby: 67% Support Investment In Nuclear Energy
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Energy, Environment, PollsIt’s clean, it’s safe, but it’s incredibly expensive and it creates a bunch of really dangerous waste that nobody wants.
I wonder if these respondents knew the whole story?
Personally, I’m hesitant about nuclear power, but I won’t dismiss it outright. Because as Alan has pointed out recently, wind and solar power just won’t do the trick, and if we’re serious about climate change, it’s going to require some compromises…one of those being building “32 new nuclear power plants a year for the next four decades.” Now, that’s a worldwide number, but since we’re the #1 consumer of energy in the world, a lot of those plants will be in our back yards.
But hey, we’re going to have to face some tough choices in the not-too-distant future, and every option should be on the table. That is unless some amazing technological breakthroughs start happening.
A guy can dream, can’t he?
This entry was posted on Friday, June 6th, 2008 and is filed under Energy, Environment, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Justin,
You might be surprised by some of the new nuclear plant designs that are being developed. I live in Michigan and we have a nuclear plant that has been running south of Detroit for years safely and cleanly. My Dad fishes in the river nearby without worry (Here’s his view on the matter: http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2004/11/environmental-extremism-french-are.html).
There are also other really cool new technologies available like the plasma arc incinerator – http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage.
I think that the respondents are looking at the trade-offs that we must make in choosing our energy sources and making a pretty rational choice in favor of nuclear power. It can help free us from coal and in moving to plug-in hybrid, electric, and hydrogen cars from reliance on foreign petroleum. It can also help ease the transition to other sources of energy that aren’t quite ready for prime time like wind and solar power that we are working to improve.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Remember, in progressive Europe, they generate approximately 80% of their electricity from nuclear. Japan gets over 90%. There has never been a nuclear accident in any of those countries. Nuclear waste is not green ooze that leaks out of rusty barrels and enters the ground water supply. Radioactive waste usually ends up as dry pebbles embedded in silica and is harder than steel.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Last year, 60 minutes (CBS) had a segment on how the French have developed methods of recycling nuclear waste. I was very impressed by their enthusiasm, and advanced knowledge on how to maintain safety while reducing costs beyond our coal- powered, hydroelectric dams etc., means of supplying power.
Liberals often look for cues from the French on just about, well, everything. I say, don’t stop now!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml
June 7th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I’ve fished in the Wolf Creek power plant cooling lake and never worried a bit. Nice big fish, because the water’s warm all year ’round.
New tech: Algal oil looks to be heading for a production breakthrough that could lower the per-barrel price to half or less the current cost of light sweet crude, and it’s an exact replacement. And it’s completely carbon-neutral–all the carbon produced by burning it was previously extracted from the atmosphere. No net new carbon in the air.
If that pans out we also eliminate the transportation costs and associated emissions. No reason your algal oil production can’t be right next to the existing refineries, you don’t have to tanker it around the world. And OPEC would run downhill fast without their oil revenues.
As an added feature it would drive the eco-nuts even crazier. We’d be able to keep all our gas-guzzlers, but they’d lose the carbon-spewing rheotrical point.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
You know, I hafta join the bandwagon here and say I’m really not afraid of nuclear power. I think we should use it (along with wind and solar). I think with the way things are going with oil, and how car buying habbits are permanently shifting, we’re going to see a shift from an oil and coal energy system to an energy system reliant primarily on elecrticity, and if you think our usage is high now, wait till you have to power millions of cars with the grid. We’re going to need massive amounts of power generation, and we’re going to need to be able to do it greenly.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big supporter of moving away from oil once and for all. I think if we can get our power generation up and our grid built to handle it, we could do quite well.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
If we’re really serious about climate change, we need to euthanize all of our livestock herds. The current “changes” proposed by Kyoto and others will do nothing to materially alter the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Of course, this assumes that there aren’t other, beyond-our-control factors that cause climate change.
Ok, so now it’s pretty obvious that I think anthropogenic climate change is this century’s eugenics. That aside, nuclear power makes a ton of sense. The U.S.’s energy independence approach should look something like this:
1) Increase domestic oil production temporarily
2) Build 1-3 additional refineries
concurrently with 1 and 2:
3) Build additional nuclear facilities because,
4) We’ll need all that extra electricity for hydrogen fuel production
5) The U.S. government’s role is that of infrastructure: the government should provide incentives and support for gas stations to add hydrogen fueling systems
and related to all of that
6) The government should fund research into mass-produceable smart materials that allow for the creation of a plastic-like substance that relies on zero oil.
Obviously, this is probably a 10-15 year process. Can we think and behave that long-term, or do we look at the future of our country in 4-year chunks? We also need to be ready for massive backlash from the Middle East. All of the countries that barely tolerate the U.S. because we are their number 1 customer aren’t going to be especially pleased when we dramatically cut the money we’re pouring into their economies.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Yep, the other posters are pretty much in line with how I feel about it. The demonization of nuclear power always struck me as pretty stupid. It’s like some people just can’t admit that there are technical solutions to technical problems and they never come up with realistic solutions after criticizing other people’s proposals.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Is it time for kumbaya?
June 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The thing is, the amount of waste produced by nuclear power plants is relatively small. Most of the troublesome waste sitting around that nobody wants was produced by making nuclear weapons. It’s a different process and produces a lot more waste.
I live near a site where they’re dealing with a lot of the leftover waste. My husband works at the lab there, and explained both processes (energy vs. weapon production) to me.