Hitcahi and GE to build new nuclear plant in the US
Well, this is welcome news. If we can get ten more announcements like this, we might be on to something.
posted by Matt at
4:11 PM
About
Providing counterpoint and commentary on the anti-nuclear power bias of the media. Nuclear power is the most environmentally benign source of energy we have yet to develop. The industrialization of the world and the lifting out of poverty of billions of people will require clean energy development, including nuclear power. The main stream media refuses to report on the positive side of nuclear power and the benefits it brings to mankind.
About Me
- Name: Matthew Schor
- Location: Herndon, Virginia, United States
A couple of degrees in Nuclear Engineering. One in management
Previous
- some of my travel photos
- China, Coal, and our Lungs
- Nuclear Power works, Politics is the probelm
- France leads the way in new nuclear power plant co...
- Great Summary of Global Warming Issues
- Reduce CO2? Build more nuclear power plants!
- What to do with nuclear waste?
- Medievel European Farmers and Climate Change
- Do you drive a politically correct car?
- No civilian nuclear program can explain the Irania...
6 Comments:
It's not "welcome news" if you live near the plant. Fortunately, Texans are organizing to stop the two new units at the South Texas Project. You can find out more at www.nukefreetexas.org.
By
Anonymous, at 4:40 PM
I guess Texans want to keep burning coal and sending money to Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia for more oil.
By
Matt, at 4:46 PM
Matt -- Do you know what a 'false dichotomy' is? It's implying that there are only two choices, in this case nukes or fossil fuels, and that rejection of one means support for the other. It's the way demagogues try to shape debate to marginalize their opponents. I don't want to 'keep burning coal, etc.' I support renewables and conservation.
By
Anonymous, at 5:22 PM
Sorry, but it is not a false dichotomy. Energy is the basis of wealth and economic growth. Conservation means no growth, just more efficient use of existing energy. I'm all for conservation. All the light bulbs in my house are now fluorescent (but my electric bill hasn't gone down!). I do want my children to live in a richer world where energy costs less and they can live in a clean environment, drink clean water, and breathe clear air. Nuclear gives us all of this.
Renewables are way over hyped, not cost effective, and like all energy sources, have their environmental impact. Like it or not, today the only choices for large scale power production (meaning base load power plants) are nuclear and fossil fuel. Hardly false. It is reality. To place hope and create a false sense of choice in 'renewables' and conservation is a disservice to the debate.
Twenty five years ago we turned away from nuclear, and the consequence is an increased reliance on fossil fuels. Look at how rich Russia, Iran, and Saudia Arabia are getting on the oil we purchase from them.
By
Matt, at 12:59 PM
How rich would the Russians, Iranians and Saudis have gotten off conservation and renewables?
Still a false dichotomy. You may assert all you like that renewables and conservation are not cost effective, but they are still a non-coal, non-nuclear alternative.
And what are you going to do with the waste?
By
Anonymous, at 3:33 PM
Pedaling my bicycle to work is an alternative than driving my car, hybrid prius, or future chevy volt. However, in a free society, I choose not to bicycle because I don't like getting wet or freezing in the winter. Yes, wind / solar energy, etc. are all alternatives, just not attractive ones. An energy option must be cost effective (and would should include all the costs such as burying the waste, or going to war in the middle east). Dealing with nuclear fission byproducts (some call it waste) is a lot easier than dealing with carbon dioxide, acid rain, etc.
Nuclear byproducts include things like Plutionium-239 (fuel, not waste), Cesium-137 (an important gamma ray source for treating cancer). Calling all spent fuel waste and trying to bury it in Yucca Mountain is not our best option for dealing with nuclear byproducts. We can get far more economic use by recycling used nuclear fuel elements into new fuel and important medical isotopes. Anything we haven't figured out a economical use for can easily be stored. In fact, we have been storing used nuclear fuel elements in this country for decades without a single mishap or fatality.
Fossil fuels by comparison emit enormous quantities of pollutants that we have been paying a tremendous economic price for. Oh, and then there is all the dollars spent waging war in the middle east. Even the second world war was fought over oil resources.
We really need to have a much more aggressive nuclear power industry to provide diversity of fuel sources. I would welcome further comments, particularly if you have an ID other than 'anonymous'
By
Matt, at 4:12 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home