Home / Videos / The Green Enterprise Videos

Is nuclear a good carbonless solution?

September 17, 2008, 4:26pm PDT | Length: 00:03:40
At the AlwaysOn GoingGreen conference in Sausalito, Calif., Paul Deninger of Jefferies and Company moderates a panel discussion about whether nuclear technology will be a viable solution in the future. Elise Zoli of Goodwin Procter adds that nuclear is a cost-efficient energy alternative to coal.
What makes IBM's 'green' data center tick

What makes IBM's 'green' data center tick

CNET News' Martin LaMonica gets a tour of IBM's lab for green IT where the data center uses...

The new eco-friendly Samsung Reclaim

The new eco-friendly Samsung Reclaim

Natali Del Conte shows us the new eco-friendly Samsung Reclaim from the product launch in New York.

Capital flowing into green

Capital flowing into green

At Greentech Media's Green Building Summit in Menlo Park, Calif., Cascadia Capital CEO Michael...

Speeding up construction on ‘green’ homes

Speeding up construction on ‘green’ homes

At Greentech Media’s Green Building Summit at SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., Serious...

Counting carbon to find bottom-line benefits

Counting carbon to find bottom-line benefits

What could your business do better? At the Greentech Media and Groom Energy, Enterprise Carbon...

E-motorcycle hits S.F. streets

E-motorcycle hits S.F. streets

CNET News reporter Mats Lewan takes the brand new Zero S electric motorcycle for a test drive in...

The Green Enterprise: HP

The Green Enterprise: HP

Hewlett-Packard plans to cut its global energy use 20 percent by 2010. Correspondent Sumi Das...

Getting green consumers to take action

Getting green consumers to take action

At the Green: Net '09 conference in San Francisco, Erin Carlson, director of Yahoo for Good,...

Talkback Most Recent of 14 Talkback(s)

  • RE: Is nuclear a good carbonless solution?
    The only way that nuclear will be a long term
    solution is to build breeder reactors. Uranium is a
    trace element, in very limited supplies. The
    breeder reactors make much better use of the very
    scarce supply. I understand that the political
    rulers do not want more breeder reactors because
    then plutonium will be much more readily available
    to make bombs. Plutonium is much easier to
    separate and purify than U235.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    gertruded
    18th Sep 2008
  • No new nukes...
    ...today tomorrow or anytime.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    23rd Sep 2008
  • Not perfect, but better than fossil fuels
    Burning coal for electrical power generation is filthy. If we
    continue to rely on coal burning fossil fuels, we continue to
    harm the environment, pollute the air increasing cancers and
    respiratory ailments, and also release massive amounts of
    greenhouse gasses into the air that speed global climate
    change. Nuclear is significantly cleaner than coal, as reliable
    and safer, and is able to provide the energy today that this
    economy needs to sustain itself and grow. You can't expect to
    get those benefits with wind or solar, not at this point in time.
    Tens of thousands of people die from coal burning power plant
    pollution related illnesses every year. Compare coal burning
    with with nuclear power related deaths, and tell me which is
    more dangerous and should be stopped.

    "nuclear power emits 2 to 6 percent of the carbon per kilowatt-
    hour as natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels."

    "Electric power generates 26 percent of the world's greenhouse
    gas emissions and 39 percent of the United States' ? it's the
    biggest contributor to global warming."
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Chiatzu
    24th Sep 2008
  • How many died...
    ...from nuclear bombs this year compared to
    conventional weapons? Are nukes safer? Should we use
    either? Your reasoning is faulty...no new nukes. They
    are not safe and are too centralized. Distributed
    green energy is the way forward.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    24th Sep 2008
  • Uh, zero.
    Faulty reasoning indeed. Should all steel be outlawed because firearms are made of it? An even better question, how many have died because of radiation related accidents at US commercially operated Nuclear plants? Again, the answer is zero. And before you bring in Chernobyl, we're talking totally different designs in both core design: graphite vs light water reactors, and containment structures: metal buildings vs concrete. And if you want to bring up TMI, again the answer is zero. Is it a perfect technology? No, there's no such thing. Is it a viable technology with solvable problems? A resounding YES!
    Disclaimer:Yes I work in the industry.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    garys5604
    26th Sep 2008
  • The point is...
    ...nukes are not safer based on numbers. How many new nuclear plants have been built in America compared to coal? To say nuclear is safer based on that is faulty. Cars kill more people than zeppelins but the numbers are incomparable...no?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    30th Sep 2008
  • Six Zeros
    Look, the deal is this. Nuclear fuel gives one million times more energy, pound for pound, than any other fuel. 1 followed by six zeros.

    Our first reactors were based on submarine reactors, which had to fit in a cramped space. Now we have better designs that just don't melt down. It's time to give them a try.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    davetracer@...
    24th Sep 2008
  • RE: Is nuclear a good carbonless solution?
    Only if the waste issue is solved. Burying in someone elses'
    backyard for 10,000 years is ridiculous. There is only one
    solution for the waste and no one is addressing it. That
    solution is to lauch the waste into space at the sun, where is
    would be destroyed thousands of miles from the Sun by
    intense heat. It would be cheap and 100% solution.
    Or how's about your backyard?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wallis2004
    25th Sep 2008
  • Very true...
    ...and the fuel must be mined, transported and
    refined. Moreover, the dangerous nature of nuclear
    requires highly centralized secure locations creating
    huge distribution and security challenges . IMO good
    (transforming) technology must be accessible to
    regular people. You literally can not have a reactor
    in your back yard. Alternately you can easily have a
    fuel cell hidden by rose bushes or solar on every
    roof. Good technology can be democratized. PERSONAL
    computer anyone? Going nuclear would be trading one
    master (OPEC) for another (to be announced).
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    25th Sep 2008
  • Look for huge transfers of wealth...
    ...from the public to the private sector if they (the financial sector and their minions in Washington)are able to foist nukes on the people.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    26th Sep 2008
  • RE: Is nuclear a good carbonless solution?
    We can't afford the plants we have now. The waste must be monitored for 1000 years and the government (us) pays for that. Yes it's cheeper for the utility co. but we are still paying for waste made in 1950
    ZDNet Gravatar
    idoallright
    26th Sep 2008
  • RE: Is nuclear a good carbonless solution?
    Why no one points out a basic "known" about nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants have a maximum operational life of ~ 100 years. In many cases less. Because of materials mutation all reactors must be shut down and mothballed after the core's operational life has been reached. As one who has spent a great deal of time at the Chernobyl nuclear station I can say empirically that unless the sun goes out, nuclear power on a large scale is simply a form of genocide by greed and stupidity.

    ?Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.?

    Albert Einstein
    ZDNet Gravatar
    BobBishop
    1st Oct 2008
  • Well said BobBishop...
    ...and thanks for a much needed chuckle.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmlundine
    1st Oct 2008
  • RTG and the Hyperion Power Generators
    Hyperion has announced that they will be
    shipping their self contained nuclear power modules
    (batteries) within the next three years. From a
    recent press release there is this quote:



    "the HPM utilizes the energy of low-enriched uranium
    fuel and will be licensed by the U.S. Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission. Each unit produces 70
    megawatts of thermal energy, or 27 megawatts of
    electricity when connected to a steam turbine. That
    amount is enough to provide electricity for 20,000
    average-size American-style homes or the industrial
    equivalent. Extremely proliferation-resistant, the
    HPM meets all of the Global Nuclear Energy
    Partnership?s stringent criteria for the safe and
    secure deployment of small ?grid-appropriate? nuclear
    reactors for distributed power."



    "Conceived at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
    Hyperion Power Module intellectual property portfolio
    has been licensed to Hyperion Power Generation for
    commercialization under the laboratory?s technology
    transfer program. The company has already received
    commitments for ten HPMs, priced at around $25
    million each, for various locations. Three factories
    spread across the globe are planned by the company to
    produce and ship the approximately 4,000 units of the
    first design."



    RTG stands for "radioisotope thermoelectric
    generator", and has been used since 1961 to power all
    spacecraft and satellite initiatives. These units
    are also called "space batteries" or "nuclear
    batteries". The first naval vessel to use nuclear
    power was the USS Nautilus, built in 1955. Although
    US military design and use of nuclear power is
    supposed to be secret, it is widely believed that
    this is where RTG nuclear power was perfected.




    With over 50 years of experience with portable
    nuclear power, one would think that we have an energy
    solution in hand, awaiting permission to deploy as a
    safe, efficient, cost effective and unlimited source
    of commercial energy. What's the holdup?



    ~ge~
    ZDNet Gravatar
    gary_edwards
    10th Nov 2008

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

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]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources

Facebook Activity