Happy Nuc Year, America

By | December 30, 2009, 1:10pm PST

Summary: Billions of dollars will be loaned to the American nuclear industry this year, it seems.

2010 is going to be the year we Yankeee taxpayers get to funnel more money into another bailout. This time it is the nuclear power industry. Back in 2005 the Congress authorized over $18 billion in loans to the nuc boys. The then-Pres signed it, but somehow, with two top oilmen in the two top positions of the land…nothing.

Now, with a different administration less enthralled by oil, oil, oil…or drill, baby, drill, there seems to be a desire to actually dispense that money. Apparently the first big bolus of cash will go to a nuclear plant in Georgia to build another reactor. It’s been decades since America commissioned a new nuclear plant.

This will not be like erecting another wind turbine. Estimates are that new nuc plant construction would not begin in Georgia before 2011, even if there are no legal delays. Construction would be completed by 2017 if all goes well. Opponents to the revived nuclear industry in Georgia are led by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). SACE is largely supported by foundations and one cosmetic firm. SACE charges over-runs, over-runs and more over-runs are likely.

You can read the whole SACE attack on the loan to their local nuclear guys here.

NUCLEAR WASTE: SPENT FUEL, NOT SPENT MONEY
And there’s the matter of all that waste, ‘er “spent fuel.” Now the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has a whole section of their website touting the great advances in spent fuel tech. They say the new tech “holds promise.” That implies you shouldn’t be holding your breath. And NEI projects it would take significant construction of numerous plants if we want nuclear to continue to produce 20% of America’s electricity as years go by.

While the first nuclear “war” may get fought in Georgia, the skirmishes will erupt in many places. A French firm, Areva, just signed a memo of understanding to try to build a nuclear power plant in Fresno. California, here we come, right back….

France–we all know–gets most of its electricity from nuclear power plants.

Of course, we all should remember that nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions, do use enormous amounts of fresh water and require fuel mined from the earth. Nuclear plants are not weather dependent and can theoretically run non-stop at controlled levels of production, not requiring huge electrical storage facilities. The nuclear issue continues to split environmental groups with some in favor, some continually opposed. When and how the fossil fuel industry might wade into this battle remains to be seen. Of course, it would not be hard for Exxon or Chevron to buy nuclear plants if they do start sprouting up in pro-nuclear states. I wouldn’t be betting my pension on those plants getting built near Fresno.

Poll

If all that money is loaned to American nuclear industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Harry Fuller

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?page_id=2

Biography

Harry Fuller

Harry Fuller is a media veteran, having spent decades in TV news in the San Francisco Bay Area. As GeneralManager of KPIX-TV (CBS) he founded one of the nation's first TV station websites in early 1995. He was News Direcor at TechTV when it was founded in 1998. In 2001 he moved to London to become Executive Producer for CNBC Europe. Four years later he returned to San Francisco as Executive Editor for CNET's news.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I am not sure of the validity of the claim of
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 1st Jan 2010
this article http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/12/21/columns/6614943.txt, but they claim that breeder reactors can reduce the the half-life of waste material from 25,000 years to 40 years. Kind of interesting though.
0 Votes
+ -
Nuclear!
medezark@... 30th Dec 2009
Now here's an energy solution with some real promise! What about those "mini-reactors" Toshiba has on the drawing boards? Spread those out, networked together, over a community to provide resiliency!! Combine that with the rooftops covered with the Akeena DIY solar panels and some of the new high capacity capacitors and we could reduce energy costs and ecological impact to almost nothing.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

And whatever happened to the breeder reactors that were supposed to be able to use spent fuel from traditional reactors?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Happy Nuc Year, America
thinking about consequences 30th Dec 2009
Harry

Nuclear reactors DON'T require huge amounts of fresh water.

The water used for steam generation is in a closed-cycle system, hence the characteristic cooling towers. Water that passes through the reactor must be kept closed cycle due to low level radioactivity.

Water used to cool and condense closed-cycle water does not have to be fresh. In fact, reactors on the coast such as near San Diego, in Florida, and on the Chesapeake Bay all use salt water for cooling. The warmed downstream water at the plant in Florida I am familiar with is a favorite play place for the manatees.

Please stop repeating "facts" you've been told time and time again are false.
If they use evaporative cooling towers, they do require significant quantities of makeup water.

Most reactors can just dump waste heat into a nearby river or ocean instead.
0 Votes
+ -
Less water more efficient ..
Agnostic_OS Updated - 30th Dec 2009
If the design hype is to be believed the the new nucs will be Generation III+ reactors. These should be even more efficient (waste less heat)than the current Generation III and have longer service lives.

Since the past is littered with disasters and near disasters in the nuclear power generation feild, and this has rightly upset the public and governments, nearly all Generation III and Generation III+ designs are internationally approved standardized designs. Notable is North Korea and Iran who do not appear to want international accreditation of ALL their facilities for some reason. China appears to fully support it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/
N.B.
This a voluntary pay-in membership organization - NOT a mandatory requirement.
0 Votes
+ -
"waste" water
medezark@... 31st Dec 2009
Unless the water is being chemically changed (from water to some other chemical), or contaminated with radioactivity, I don't see how using water to cool the reactor is "waste".

The water isn't being destroyed or chemically altered. It's picking up some excess heat, and being released back to the environment, where it could be re-used for irrigation, streams, etc.

I could imagine a scenario where an area normally too cold for agriculture could use heated water from a nuclear facility to warm and irrigate large greenhouse complexes for food production. Or a dry climate could use desalinated water produced by a cooling system as irrigation source.
0 Votes
+ -
Attaboy
Hallowed are the Ori 30th Dec 2009
You don't want the US to use coal, you don't want to use oil, and now you don't want to use nuclear.

What will make you happy? An agrarian society?
0 Votes
+ -
Poor Harry
itpro_z 30th Dec 2009
It must be tough to come to the realization that the best and most viable solution to all of your GW problems is the one thing that you have hated most: Nuclear power.

Look on the bright side, Harry. Nuclear fission is only a short term solution. In a few decades we will have newer technologies available that will obsolete fission as a power source. Fusion, antimatter, and artificial singularities are all waiting in the wings, not to mention things that we haven't even dreamed of yet. All we really need from fission is a few decades to allow us the time to develop better tech.
0 Votes
+ -
Lol - good one!
Rod_Amc 30th Dec 2009
Eventually even die-hard hippies (oops: now the green generation) bump into reality. Y'know, jobs, wife, kids, mortgage etc. Fuller will get it, one day.
0 Votes
+ -
We only hope
linux_kernel 31st Dec 2009
The tree huggers who complain about everyone else
do the exact same thing.

NO Work = Starve

Nuclear Energy = POWER, Jobs, Food ect...
0 Votes
+ -
You go nuclear just as Oil goes green.
Agnostic_OS 30th Dec 2009
Here's one for you Harry...
Oil companies are going green mainly because they know that energy diversification is the future for so many countries. They also have the financial muscle to get there quickly.
It's an old piece but still worth a look...

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Oil_Companies_Go_Green_Greenopia_Ranks_Them_for_Sustainability/2e905074.aspx

The fun part is who's doing the rating!
0 Votes
+ -
"nuc" ?
gtvr 31st Dec 2009
This is your worst article ever. Come on - "nuc" - at least use "nuke" which is commonly used. Whine whine whine.
Is our absolute BEST source of power, and if don't
correctly, the nuclear 'waste' can be reused in numerous
reactors until it is so depleted that it cannot be used
anymore.
0 Votes
+ -
It is interesting that NUCrane
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh Updated - 31st Dec 2009
a company that build special cranes designed specifically for nuclear reactors is finishing a new plant here in MN in fact the same town I live in currently. This is especially good for our job market, given that Unemployment has hit this town rather hard.

Jobs for a Nuclear Powered America are on the horizon.

Of course the big fear is a Chernobyl event, however, the risk of that happening is very very low. In fact the biggest problem with Chernobyl is that there were some safety things that most European and American reactors had in place such as a Hardened Containment Chambers, which the Russians often did not build into their reactors.

As far as waste is concerned, like one poster said we could also bring back various types of breeder reactors that don't require uranium. Not only that storage of such spent fuel could go right back to where it was mined from. You already dug the hole, you may as well fill it with something.

Here is an example of a breeder reactor, that does not require the expensive enriched uranium, and could run 60 years or longer on its first fill of material. It is called a Traveling-Wave Reactor, http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/
0 Votes
+ -
That's cool
ITLeader 31st Dec 2009
Thanks for the link, looks very interesting!
0 Votes
+ -
I am not sure of the validity of the claim of
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 1st Jan 2010
this article http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/12/21/columns/6614943.txt, but they claim that breeder reactors can reduce the the half-life of waste material from 25,000 years to 40 years. Kind of interesting though.
0 Votes
+ -
Green or not.....
Takalok 31st Dec 2009
Time passes quickly, and the time remaining for fossil fuels will also go by quickly. - How long? Who knows, it doesn't matter...

Nuclear is it. It's the future and the one and only power option reasonably available to all humanity.

And yes, breeder reactors are a must, which will require the laws currently outlawing breeders (thanks Greenies) to be repealed.

Now if we can just legalize pot so all the Greenies will be too stoned to protest, life will be great.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix