In the Crossfire
The going forward cost of nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels and intermittent power sources like solar and wind are nowhere near cost competitive when you look at actual power produced instead of only.
The issue of waste is a red herring, the only issue is a political one, it actually a resource to be used in advanced reactors. The myth is that there is a level waste problem at all.
You are probably right that environmentalists are not the cause, they are simple pawns being used by fossil fuel interests whose short term greed is more important than the prosperity and even survival of the human race.
Of course nuclear power is safe. The investment amortizes much faster than investments in alternative energy. It requires far less geographical area per kilowatt generated and maintenance costs are much lower especially if you own the regulators. In the event of a cataclysmic event you blame the government, file chapter 11 bankruptcy and let the government clean up the mess and pay to relocate all of the families affected. Then you invest in solar cell technology and a wide sweeping ad campaign to prove you are a responsible business.
November 10, 2013 at 7:31 am Reply
He talks about opportunity cost. Hmm. go on. Here a fun fact, we only mine about 7% of the uranium used here annually. The rest is imported, so it might be a safe assumption that the REST OF THE WORLD is doing all the nuclear development and that WE falling behind. (only 5% of the cement used in concrete too). Behind in anything, but especially in nuclear technology is not good. It takes knowledge, tooling and practice to be safe. As for their question of being scared: I be far more of undetected radon in my basement than nuclear danger by living next to a nuclear power plant. Microwaves are dangerous, so certain towers might be avoided too. I be more of living next to a large high traffic airport from the oil smell to kinetic incidents. Living near active volcanoes might be a problem too (lol). BUT! We really should be open to the opportunities of actively seeking to import nuclear waste from other stupid little countries, like Italy, who didn think of long term storage and have dangerously large amounts of waste how likely are little obscure countries who have or will certainly have nuclear power in the future to just do what we used to do dump it deep sea? Yes, we dumped thousands of tons out there and there it still sits, 35,000 ft. down. It hits a hot spot down there and who knows what might start to grow? Nuclear waste is the heaviest known material and stays down, so what to stop other countries from dumping (whether we like it or not)? It not a question of anymore, but at disney pandora charms what rate and in what parts of our oceans. We can offer solutions that are safer for everyone worldwide and teach others as well. Which risk is higher, exposure to polluted ocean water worldwide, or exposure by waste under our secure, trained, responsible, genius level waste contractors under the purview of the EPA? (OK, genius probably not, yeah) Plus, breeder reactors are redesigned and refined all the time, like tweaking your favorite recipe. The solution to all of this is forthcoming history. My hope is that the Ignition initiative will continue to show results, then perhaps we will have a means of true incineration of nuclear waste with no future need of fission at all from that point. Just a thought, hope. Tech science can be focused in the arena of waste management and breeding reactors, then grown for EVERYONE good. Or we can just bomb into oblivion any country that mines, refines or uses radioactive materials and found to dump. I see the real possibility of worldwide waste dumping on a HUGE SCALE, but also an opportunity where we can help put a stop to it at a profit or break even and it doesn even have to be done on our soil, though it could be. An opportunity to develop methods, protocols, geological surveys and needs, waste conversion, ADEQUATE AND ESSENTIAL REGULATIONS along with those protocols, here a big one: STANDARDIZATION! Again for future possibilities without the dream of fusion coming true, waste materials have mucho energy. It might take time to figure out the physics to extract it. Taking hold of this planet sized bull (bull dukey) by the horns and providing safe alternatives in waste by developing quality technology could make the world safer if we were the ones handling it, instead of like, say, morons who stick nuclear reactors on a huge fault line n call it good. By morons, I mean an expletive far more worse than I can think of at this time. It late. The fact is, sadly, that Mr. Nader is wrong on a lot where to buy pandora rings of it, especially about the delusion that ANY country can have the level of control that he demands for his plans/ideas. The world is a different place and even here in most states where it will cost something no one will listen him, probably laugh at him. I know, he a god to some people, so NO insult intended. Just a conclusion. Nadar says to go and to this, then do that. It that simple No sir, it isn We don have the control we used to, not even for we ourselves. Make it profitable however. shift the paradigm a bit and your ideas may take hold. Also about Mr. Nadar, he is really really tough and that kid didn even phase him. Not even a little. I applaud the kid enthusiasm and his actual solutions, vetted or not. I applaud Mr. Nader for his years of service and continuation of viable ideas and his ability to get people to think. It was all good to talk about, especially about the development of the rest of the world and how to interact with them, how to provide grid sized electrical energy. It needs to be addressed. All of it.
November 10, 2013 at 4:44 am Reply
I am thankful that CNN covered such an important and heated topic such as nuclear energy and aired the film Promise The pros for using nuclear energy far outweigh the cons. It is an energy abundant and limitless in our universe and I believe we have so much yet we can improve and advance on in the field through invested research and development. I would like to see major advancements in our nuclear reactor designs and find a solution to the nuclear waste problem either by using breeder reactors or by finding some process such as plant uptake that can eliminate the waste. The October 2013 issue of Scientific American did a story on Russia ambitious nuclear energy program and I can help but wonder why the US continues to drag their feet on nuclear energy while many other nations see it as a necessary option and are investing in the next generations of nuclear scientists. The lack of scientific understanding and/or critical thinking skills in the US shows its true colors in this focused opposition to using nuclear energy to serve the growing electricity demands. Thank you again for covering such an important topic, a critical one to future generations.
November 10, 2013 at 3:50 am Reply
Nikola Tesla, the greatest inventor of all time, demonstrated there is abundant electricity for every man and woman on the planet. He also showed us how to tap into this energy. The film decides to focus on oil and coal, solar and wind as the main alternative to nuclear and ignores the most efficient and clean energy sources and devices that have been developed since Tesla in the early 1900s. Please, folks, just do a little research and you will learn how these devices tap the energy in the vacuum Richard Feynam talked about this through his career. Nuclear energy never was and never will be a reasonable alternative. Ask questions, seek the truth, decide for yourself: Dogma vs. Suppression
November 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm
What people miss in the debate is ALL energy generation uses LIMITED RESOURCES.
Political example of maleficences by the winner take all 2party weak democracy we ALL live under in negative vetting of productive ideas. BRUCE NUCLEAR pandora ringe PARK in Ontario, Can. is the largest heavy water CANDU facility in the world generating over 53% from Ontario Power. Successive Liberal Gov have embarked in funding Powered Green Pirate sources: solar wind micro dam. In fact 2 Nat. gas fired plants had to be shutdown decommissioned costing taxpayers/ratepayers a billion in fact a transparent forensic audit by gov had to be conducted finding the abuse of funds by status quo politicians.
Ontario generated surplus electricity it use to sell to Detroit, Mich. but since economic collapse bankruptcy that economy ceased.
Russians are projecting the use of floating Small Modular Reactors (SMR in a integrated effort to extract and process resources on site. Why?
Because small nuke power affords lower cost savings in 6 8 yrs. re fueling. Hydrocarbon like coal gas oil needs frequent re fueling. Besides dual use electrical power can run MAGLEV railroad transport which builds communities which builds local economies. Unlike the oil boondoggles of pipelines which don build communities and manufacturing.
Sorry, Green Hive politics is bad policy in energy use issue growth economy.
November 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm Reply
The GREATEST ENERGY INEFFICIENCY is Wind Solar Energy. You MUST run the LEAST EFFICIENT Fossil ship pandora charm Fuel power plants in their most inefficient possible method to shadow the fluctuating Wind and Solar energy. You MUST overbuild the Wind Solar, throwing energy down the sewer when the Wind Solar is maxing out, commonly when energy demand is lowest. The economics of Wind Solar are forcing the LEAST EFFICIENT Oil OCGT ancient Coal smoke belchers onto the Grid, because only they are economical to run on this fluctuating basis. Indeed areas with high Wind Solar penetration are unbelievably forking out high payments to dirty, polluting, fuel guzzling, coal, oil and OCGT burners as capacity payments to supply power when Wind Solar go to zip, and demand is high which is very common.
November 9, 2013 at 8:34 pm Reply
Nuclear energy has been the safest way to produce electricity per megawatt in the USA that is a wonderful track record. New designs build upon the 50 years of experience to be even safer. There are designs on the drawing board which can help meet humanity energy needs without polluting our environment. I live around 3 miles from the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA where I have been working as an Instrument and Control technician for over 25 years, it is safer today than when I got there.
November 9, 2013 at 8:08 pm Reply
Most of the comments here are so far off base that they simply don deserve a response, however, several do.
First the spent fuel being used in commercial reactors is NOT being used to build a stockpile of plutonium for nuclear weapons. ALL of the fuel is stored on site thanks to the failure of the federal government to approve a repository at Yucca Mtn.
Solar wind and other energy sources are not currently capable of supplying our energy needs. You can argue all day that that they can but you are wasting your time. The facts prove otherwise. Also the federal subsidies for renewable energy sources is at least equal to, and probably greater than, the subsidy given to nuclear power. Look it up!
Finally, comments related to man made/caused climate change are ridiculous. Is the climate changing? Yes! It always has and always will. Is there any correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels? NO! Download the data and plot it yourselves!
November 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm Reply
Fukushima, a total meltdown of THREE nuclear power plants which did not have any of the basic safety systems that are de rigueur in US plants has killed.
NOBODY with radiation. As a catastrophe, I say let us have more of those and fewer natural gas explosions killing dozens and dozens or hydro electric dam collapses killing 10s of thousands or millions of people dying from bio fuel usage. Nuclear, including the accidents and the bombings has killed fewer folks in its ENTIRE HISTORY the renewables kill each and every year.
Prev: pandora specials australia
Next: gold pandora charms sale