► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear Power’

Moonbat Gets One Right

by Iron Fist ( 167 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Environmentalism, Regulation at March 22nd, 2011 - 8:00 pm

And not just any moonbat, but the Moonbat, George Monbiot himself:

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

The old adage about a stopped clock may be right, but this is actually well-reasoned. Sane, even. Yes, Fukushima had about as bad a hand delt it as is possible, and yet it was never in any danger of becoming another Chernobyl. It simply couldn’t become that bad. The Greens did themselves no favors here:

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I’m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn’t work.

I especially like that last sentence. That is very much the truth. Even a dam and water-wheel has some effect on the environment. The Greens’ precious windmills kill birds and bats in addition to not working very well unless the environmental conditions are just right. Not suitable for running the power grid of a Third World nation, let alon that of a modern industrial/post-industrial power.

Monbiot of course gives the obligatory genuflection to “renewable” energy sources, but then he follows it with some hard-nosed analysis of a kind that most Leftists are incapable of. I like his closing paragraph:

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It’s hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it’s not much use in Birmingham.

Nothing I disagree with there. What is being said may come as no surprise to the readers of this blog, but what makes this news is the source. If the anti-Nuke “Greens” have lost George Monbiot, they have lost the war. If he stays this rational on the subject, he becomes a better spokesman for our side of the issue than any we can produce. It will be interesting to see if the Left now attack him, since he has stepped off the Green-Red Reservation.

An interesting new type of nuclear reactor

by coldwarrior ( 57 Comments › )
Filed under Science, Technology at May 19th, 2010 - 9:00 am

I was reading this article and was made aware of a very interesting new type of miniature nuclear reactor for electricity generation.

May 17 (Bloomberg) — Manufacturers of refrigerator-sized nuclear reactors will seek approval from U.S. authorities within a year to help supply the world’s growing electricity demand.

Transportable by truck, the units would come in a sealed box and work around the clock, requiring less maintenance than a fossil fuel plant, the developers say. They’d cost 15 percent less per megawatt of capacity than the average full-scale atomic reactors now in on the drawing board, according to World Nuclear Association data.

“A 25-megawatt plant would put electricity into 20,000 homes, and it would fit inside this room,” James Kohlhaas, vice president at a Lockheed Martin Corp. unit that builds power systems for remote military bases, said in an interview. “It’s a pretty elegant micro-grid solution.”

Of course, there is licensing and other red tape, it is an elegant solution to energy needs that should be pursued.

Here is the link to ‘the plans’ that Hyperion Power has proposed. Please take a moment to read it.

Obama? Nukes? Huh?

by snork ( 127 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Climate, Economy, Technology at January 30th, 2010 - 8:00 am

From Bloomberg, we have this baffling article: Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans Baffling not only because the left has never been nuke-friendly in the US, but also because of the details.

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling U.S. loan guarantees for new reactors to more than $54 billion, an administration official said.

The additional loan guarantees in Obama’s budget, which will be released Feb. 1, are part of an effort to bolster nuclear-power production after the president called for doing so in his State of the Union address Jan. 27. In a conference call with reporters, Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced a panel to find a solution to storing the waste generated by nuclear plants.

The motivation I think is pretty clear. They know that they aren’t going to get a cap-n-trade kind of deal, and they also know that the economics of solar and wind just doesn’t pencil out, and so if they want to reduce CO2 emissions (and punish the coal industry), the way to do it is to incent nukes.

But here’s the part that doesn’t make any sense:

For the 2011 budget, the department will add $36 billion to the $18.5 billion already approved for nuclear-power plant loan guarantees, according to the official, who asked not to be identified because the budget hasn’t been released. Congress started the program in 2005 to encourage new plant construction, but the department has yet to issue a loan guarantee.

[…]

Industry groups such as the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute have said the loan guarantees are critical to reviving the industry because most companies can’t afford the capital investment in a facility that can take a decade to complete. The institute in a December report put the cost of a reactor at as much as $9 billion.

So the loans need to be guaranteed by the government and the guarantees have to be budgeted? It sure sounds to me like the operators have no intention of repaying the loans, and this is a back door subsidy. If the economics pencils out, there should be no need for a guarantee, and if risk is an issue, the biggest risk is legal or regulatory, and the government should indemnify them against lawsuits and regulations coming at them in the future.

I guess that in a roundabout way, they have indemnified them against these risks, but they’re also indemnifying them against other risks, such as the wholesale price of power going down, and the risk of their own operational mismanagement. If the loans are guaranteed, then give all the mucky mucks big fat raises, because Uncle Sam will pick up the tab.

Just like this student loan forgiveness, this kind of guarantee/forgiveness is welfare. In this case corporate welfare. Let’s get out of the way and let them build nukes, but if they won’t do it on their own (and ditto for refineries, btw), the market’s trying to tell us that we don’t need them, at least right now.

The money would be better spent on research into next-generation technologies, but Chu is wetting his pants that the climate is going to melt next year, and we have to do something, big, and now.  I think their open mind toward nukes is a step in the right direction, but just watch – this is going to be another massive boondoggle.

UPDATE: As an example of what can go wrong with a massive government-backed crash program of nuclear power plant building, read the history of WPPSS.

UPDATE II: An interesting article about one of the next-generation nuke technologies, Thorium power. Thorium is considerably more abundant than uranium, but that’s not the only advantage.


(Don’t forget to vote in the Blogmocracy Awards! One vote per award, per day~ Voting ends Feb. 5)

Obama Supports Nuclear Power for Iran

by Phantom Ace ( 48 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iran, Islamic Supremacism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at June 2nd, 2009 - 7:24 am

President Barack Hussein Obama continues his appeasement of Islamo-Fascists. He is now supporting Iran’s desire for Nuclear power.

Obama says Iran’s energy concerns legitimate

LONDON — President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

“What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations,” Obama said, adding that the international community also “has a very real interest” in preventing a nuclear arms race.

Obama is OK with nuclear power for Islamic nations like Iran or the UAE, but he is against that for here at home. Iran is not  a nation to be trusted. It is a nut job regime that believes that it must start some apocalyptic war to bring back “the Mahdi”. This is sad when our President wants for the Muslim world, what it doesn’t want for America: energy and self sufficiency.