The nonsense that is global warming has invaded almost every aspect of our lives and, what is worse, it is a total fraud, a scam, a tool from a minority to gain power over the rest of us by denying us adequate energy to sustain our economy and therefore how we live.
Without adequate fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, our economy will diminish in strength and vitality, which means we will have to change how we think about the future. In reality we won't have a future that will support life styles like our parents or even our grand parents had.
In reality, America will depend on fossil fuels, and nuclear energy, as a major sources of energy for the expansion our economy for the next thirty or fifty years. Wind, Bio and solar will account for less than 20% of needs by 2030. To deny this is ignorance of history, real science and life in this country.
Do we need alternate sources of energy - absolutely - but with realty screaming in our ear saying we need more energy now, and I mean right now, we have to move forward with known sources, i.e. oil and nuclear energy.
Oil sources in this country alone can provide our energy needs for the next 60 to 80 years. Coal for the next 200 years. Where's the common sense? Drill Here - Drill now - Pay Less.
I can not even bring in Ethanol as a viable source as it is on the way out already. This was the nonsense that ever one knew was a mistake from the beginning, but never the less, went ahead with it's development. The reason? Government intervention in the free market.
As we all know now, first hand, Ethanol has cause monumental problems with our and the world food supply.
This article lays out the reality of our power needs and the good reason for moving forward with nuclear energy. I can't agree on the global warming nonsense, green house gases, CO2, but still it is a must for our present and future energy needs and it is affordable.
Always keep the faith in America, the battle goes on for Freedom to chose.
Low-emission Power Source Gaining Attention
After the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, safety concerns and skyrocketing construction costs put the brakes on nuclear-power development. But concern over how the United States can generate large amounts of baseload power without increasing carbon dioxide emissions—combined with streamlined construction methods and enhanced safety features—has positioned nuclear power for a comeback.
Next to coal, nuclear power plants are the primary generation source for large amounts of reliable baseload electricity. Even better, nuclear reactors can help curb emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, blamed for contributing to global warming.
In 2007, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit utility-sponsored organization whose members include electric co-ops, released a study showing how electric utilities could help significantly reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by taking several aggressive steps. One includes increasing nuclear power to 25 percent of market share.
Expanding Existing Plants
Currently, nuclear power provides 19 percent of the nation’s power supply, behind coal at 49 percent and natural gas at 22 percent.
“The country already has 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity,” says Tom TerBush, EPRI manager of nuclear market strategy. “We project adding 24,000 megawatts of new nuclear by 2020 and then 4,000 megawatts a year after that to reach a total of 64,000 megawatts by 2030—an achievable, but ambitious goal.”
The new plants will include significant safety improvements over the reactors used today. “For starters, they won’t rely on active components to shut things down in an emergency,” says John Holt, senior principal for generation and fuel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). “To reduce human error, the plants will feature more passive systems that can open and close valves automatically using gravity or water flow to cool reactor cores, multiple backup power systems, and digital control rooms. And they will incorporate enhanced post-9/11 security measures, including hardened concrete exteriors that can better withstand the shock of events such as an airplane strike.”
Modular, Modernizing
To keep work on the fast track, most new nuclear plants will rely on standardized design and modular construction.
Contractors such as General Electric claim they can construct an entire facility from the ground up in approximately 36 months.
Adding time spent gaining approval to site a plant, however, would likely stretch the total development of a new plant to 10 years.
Nuclear power’s contribution also depends on the continued safe and reliable performance of existing plants. Most of the nation’s 104 reactors were licensed during the 1960s and 1970s, with roughly half having had their licenses extended from 40 to 60 years, and the remainder filing extension applications with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Discussions are also underway with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and NRC for additional 20-year extensions.
“We believe that with sufficient maintenance, refurbishment, and upgrades, today’s nuclear power plants could operate quite safely for many more decades,” says Dave Modeen, EPRI vice president of the nuclear power sector.
Additionally, the NRC expects to receive up to 29 applications from utilities to build new nuclear power plants in 20 states, chiefly in the South. Applications for licenses—the first in three decades—have just started rolling in.
Costs and Storage
The nation’s nuclear plants in 2007 produced electricity for an average of 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), according to the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute. That compares with 2.37 cents per kwh for coal and 6.75 cents per kwh for natural gas-fired plants. “Unlike fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, a rise in uranium prices to power nuclear facilities has only a minimal effect on the price of electricity,” comments Holt. “And uranium is a natural resource in plentiful supply.”
Nonetheless, construction costs for all types of power generation have risen significantly, and nuclear will be no exception.
To expand nuclear power generation, a long-term strategy for storing nuclear waste must also be put in place. Nearly 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste sit at 126 “temporary” sites—commercial nuclear power plants, defense installations, and national laboratories—in 39 states, all of it in aboveground cooling pools or dry casks.
“These on-site facilities were designed to handle nuclear material only for a short time,” states NRECA CEO Glenn English. “For nuclear power to stay viable, electric co-ops believe that permanent storage is necessary.”
The best option at present is a facility eyed for Yucca Mountain, Nev., a remote spot located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas near former nuclear warhead testing grounds. But countless problems, such as ongoing lawsuits and political resistance by Nevada officials as well as inadequate congressional appropriations, have put Yucca Mountain in a state of limbo—even as DOE contractors continue to drill tunnels and conduct scientific tests.
Electric co-op consumers who receive electricity from nuclear power plants have already paid $700 million to build the Yucca Mountain storage facility.—
Jennifer Taylor, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment