Obama's Energy Secretary comes out in favor of Nuclear Energy

[eXceLon]

Energy Sec. Chu: If It's Coal Vs. Nuclear, 'I'd Rather Be Living' Near A Nuke Plant

While I support investment in alternative power sources, I don't think that things like solar or wind energy are going to be able to be able to fill our power needs any time soon. I was disappointed that the Republicans never pursued expanding nuclear power during their time in power, and that Obama refused to support it during his campaign.

At least Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, seems to get it.

Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's the best alternative that we have. There is no scarcity of nuclear fuels. It doesn't emit pollutants that cause asthma in the local population. It doesn't cause smog. It doesn't produce poisonous run-off into local water supplies. You don't have to strip mine large swaths of land to get at it. And if you're inclined to believe in human-caused climate change, it doesn't emit greenhouse gasses either.

For reasonable environmentalist, nuclear is the ideal power source. Nuclear power supplies 90% of energy produced in France. It's a proven technology, that works right now. And the technology has come a long way, and it's only gotten safer.

The problem is that radical environmentalists have too much sway within the environmentalist movement, and they oppose nuclear power. Further a lot of people simply don't know better, and to them nuclear power sound scary and they don't want it anywhere near them. Even if it already is, and they just don't know it.

[grandmaterkathy]

I worked on Westinghouse's legal team defending them from the environmentalists and their hassles. Westinghouse won but the process takes twenty years or more for a shovel to go into the ground if ever.

The only Nukes you will find being built are going to be in China, Venezuela and the Mid East.

[FNG19]

I was disappointed that the Republicans never pursued expanding nuclear power during their time in power, and that Obama refused to support it during his campaign.

The problem isn't that the GOP can't pursue it, but rather that the environmentalists have a stranglehold on the process. They can push the process of installing a Nuclear Reactor for a decade or more before the first shovel hits the ground through lawsuits, environment impact studies, etc. Nuclear Power is easy to do. Hanging Greenpeace in its own red tape is hard.

[ehidle]

Nuclear fuel actually is in quite short supply. It's not as bad as fossil, but the world Uranium supply does have its issues. There are only about 80 years worth of proved or reasonably assured Uranium reserves at current usage, and the rate of discovery is very low.

If we double that in the next 40 years, we'll be out in 50-60, but the runup in price may kill it long before then.

[FNG19]

Nuclear fuel actually is in quite short supply.

Wow, that goes into the "You Learn Something New Every Day!" file. Do you have a cite for that so I can read more?

[ehidle]

Wow, that goes into the "You Learn Something New Every Day!" file. Do you have a cite for that so I can read more?

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publica...ub1104_scr.pdf

Look at page 7.. Reactor requirements surpassed manufactured fuel for pretty much all of the 1990s.

[eXceLon]

There are alternative nuclear fuels out there, which can help to prolong the supply of fissile uranium. (Thorium Fuel Cycle)

There is also fast breeder reactos technology that actually produces more nuclear fuel as a byproduct of power production.

Like I said, the technology has come a long way.

The problem isn't that the GOP can't pursue it, but rather that the environmentalists have a stranglehold on the process. They can push the process of installing a Nuclear Reactor for a decade or more before the first shovel hits the ground through lawsuits, environment impact studies, etc. Nuclear Power is easy to do. Hanging Greenpeace in its own red tape is hard.

The reason why the red-tape is insurmountable is because the opponents of nuclear power have made it that way.

Congress can very easily change that, should it be so inclined.

[ungawa]

It's absolutely amazing. On the one hand, we are told global warming is going to destroy the world and all life. On the other hand, nuclear is bad.

Wait a minute - I thought it was the end of the F-ing world? Why do we have to ingore the one practical solution TO THE END OF THE F'ING WORLD?

Only thing I can figure, it's too practical and doesn't cost enough.

[sttaffy]

Only thing I can figure, it's too practical and doesn't cost enough.

I think you may have nailed it. Everybody ready for carbon taxes?

[TXDMERC73]

i support Nuclear Energy but not the Nuclear weapons, only problem is when they build a Nuclear power plant it takes up resources having to protect the Plant, u dont have to do that with coal energy.

Yes Coal energy is very dirty and a bigger health hazard for the miners and the people who live near coal generation plants, i lived in Frackville many years when i was a kid growing up and i could smell the fumes from the road comign form those Coal gen plants , but they took care of it not long ago.