iNuclear

European Blackouts...Nuclear Power Needed

2006-11-05T21:26:00.000-08:00

Yesterday there were blackouts rippling across Europe and the nation of Georgia was being blackmailed by their former masters Russia, who is threatening to raise their natural gas prices.

A good example why nuclear power is an inevitable winner in the future. When people's power goes out or they are freezing to death because their gas has been cut off...then suddenly, magically, they lose their objections to nuclear power.

Buy uranium futures!

Why Can't We Buy 100% Nuclear Electricity?

2006-10-11T14:36:00.000-07:00

About half the states in the US have programs that allow residents and businesses to purchase "green" electricity, that which is generated by wind, solar, and hydro. So, why can't people buy the "greenest" electricity -- from nuclear power plants?

Any of you nuclear fans who might read this blog, leave a comment!

Recent Advances Demonstrate Why Nuclear Will Win

2006-10-01T14:55:00.000-07:00

In the past few months, engineers have announced some reletively simple changes that will increase the safety and efficiency of nuclear plants.

For example, a group at MIT have found that by making Uranium fuel pellets hollow, like tubes (Right now they are basically solid slugs) it's possible to increase the fuel efficiency by 50%.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1752824.htm

Yes that's right folks. One minor change, and we get a 50% pop. That's an incredible increase. Compare that to oil or coal plants, or wind or solar systems, where it takes decades to squeeze out a 2 or 3 percent increase.

This is a perfect example of why nuclear power is the long-term winner of the energy race on this planet. It's already the safest, cleanest, and most efficient energy source on the planet...AND we've only barely begun to see the kind of improvements that will come over time.

In another 20 years or 50 years, nuclear plants will become so powerful and efficient, fossil fuels, and probably most renewables, will simply be unable to compete.

Go to this Site and Send a Letter...

2006-08-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

I just ran into a site called "Kick the Oil Habit". They have a cool little form where you can send a letter to the fossil fuel industry. I suspect they want us to send a letter berating the fossil fuel industry for it's sins. Instead, I sent them a letter inviting them to INVEST IN NUCLEAR POWER.

Dear Energy Company Executives:
By far the fastest, easiest, and most proven solution to carbon dioxide reduction is to BUILD MORE NUCLEAR REACTORS!

Unlike wind, solar, and biofuels, all of which have had a difficult time delivering on the promises made by their advocates, nuclear power has a solid record of success.

For example, France converted 75% of their electrical grid to nuclear power, thus making their electicity completely carbon-free, in only 25 years. If the US, Canada, and the UK did the same (and if the French could do it, why couldn't we?) then that would cut worldwide carbon emissions by almost 30%. It's an awesome, but achievable, goal.
Nuclear reactors are also well-designed for producing vast amounts of hydrogen to power vehicles as well. Yes, nuclear waste is a mess to deal with, but it's a million times less trouble than the carbon dioxide waste that we are currently pumping into the air. Sequestering a few barrels of nuclear waste is much easier than sequestering mile-high clouds of carbon dioxide.
I urge your firm to begin investing in developing the nuclear industry. It's still early in the "nuclear renasissance" and a great time to make good returns for your investors, and position your firm to be part of the great energy shift of the next century.
Or better yet, be like General Electric and invest in BOTH nuclear power AND in wind energy. That's the kind of vigorous effort that will save the world from Global Warming.
Thank you.

Then I sent this letter to my friends:

We need to get the message out. It's time for us to start investing more agressively in nuclear power. Solar, wind, and biofuels are a nice dream, but have been painfully slow to grow. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has proven its ability to deliver enormous amounts of carbon-dioxide free electricity.
For example, France converted 75% of their electrical grid to nuclear power in only 25 years. If the entire world did the same, we would solve the Global Warming problem immediately.

We need to spread the word. Nuclear power is our best shot of handling global warming. Let's work on it!

Step 1 is to get the Environmental Movement to drop their wrongheaded objections to nuclear power. They just "don't get it" and the earth is suffering as a result.

Please go to http://www.kicktheoilhabit.org/ and ask them to prove they are serious about Global Warming...by supporting nuclear power as one good part of the solution.

Watch the video. Learn more. Take action. Join the campaign. If we work together, we can have a better energy future.

Thanks!

"Within 2 Generations, Nuclear Will Become Primary Source of Energy"

2006-08-02T10:36:00.000-07:00

Here is a great summary of the energy market from the Emerging Trends Report (an Oakland-based thinktank), comparing nuclear power to "clean" coal.

Excerts:

Nuclear energy is perceived to be expensive, inefficient, hazardous and fraught with danger ... and within two generations will become America’s primary source of energy.

The next evolutionary step that will be taken in the decades ahead will be the development of dual-use nuclear power: base load electrical generation coupled with the electrolysis of water to produce either hydrogen, a carbon-neutral fuel posited as the clean replacement for fossil fuels, or potable water. There will be a dire need for both in the years ahead.

This leads the ETR to the conclusion the focus should not be on costs but on policy - we have to find a better energy policy, one we can live with for generations to come. And in this regard, nuclear energy holds far more promise than either coal or natural gas.

"Supergrid" Powerlines For a Nuclear-Based Economy

2006-07-31T21:29:00.000-07:00

This months Scientific American publishes an article discussing a new concept in power grids, which transport both electrical power and liquid hydrogen. This is a key enabling technology for the next century because it will allow massive increases in power transport AND even more important, the liquid hydrogen in the network allows excess power to be "stored" or buffered.

This technology would be perfect for a Nuclear + Wind/Solar based economy. It would solve the problem of "intermittent power" that plagues the wind/solar folks. Of course, it would also enable the expansion of nuclear energy, because it would allow the nuclear industry to keep building more reactors on the same existing sites. It's politically much more difficult to build a new nuclear site, but reletively easy to add more units to existing sites.

Scientific American: A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy

Cryogenic, superconducting conduits could be connected into a "SuperGrid" that would simultaneously deliver electrical power and hydrogen fuel.

One interesting point the article made: existing power lines are not only overtaxed, but the system is pretty much at it's limit.

By the way, the co-author of this paper is Chauncy Starr, the former head of the Electric Power Research Institute and one of the great leaders the nuclear industry. If he says it will work, it will work!

Thought-Provoking Article on GNEP

2006-07-13T21:53:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration has been working on a program called GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) which would have the result of re-introducing nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States, and would set up a program to distribute fuel and collect used fuel from other nations.

Jenny Wang was kind enough to forward this article in Technology Review, in which Matthew Wald questions the value of GNEP.

It's an excellent article. After reading it a few times, I can't say I agree with him completely, but at the same time his points are quite valid. It's well worth some debate. In fact I believe that the GNEP program is currently soliciting comments from nuclear energy experts on the first draft plan, and so nothing is finalized yet.

Here's my take:

1. Carbon Sequestration

Wald talks about the "horse race" between carbon-sequestered coal, nuclear, and wind. But carbon sequestration is still extremely speculative. People talk about the "problem" of nuclear waste, but disposal of nuclear waste is a snap compared to carbon sequestration on any scale. It's a simple matter of density: one small pellet of nuclear waste, which is a very dense solid easy to vitrify in a form which is chemically inert, is equivalent to a mile-wide cloud of carbon dioxide gas which must be pumped somewhere and sealed, and which will leak and corrode the local ground. The idea of carbon sequestration in the ocean is even more bizarre (except for Iron Fertilization, a technique which might really work, but which is unsuitable for power-plant carbon sequestration).

Really, carbon sequestration is a stunningly difficult and unlikely engineering problem, and any researcher who claims otherwise is blowing smoke. Here's a nice post on carbon sequestration by Rod Adams

2. Wind

Regarding wind, we already have discussed at length it's problems. It's completely random and intermittent and essentially usesless for baseload power. On the other hand, wind works very well if you can back it up with a solid baseload generator like nuclear power. So wind, solar, and nuclear are really not competitors at all. They are collaborators. This view will slowly gain traction in the general public and will eventually be conventional wisdom.

3. Proliferation

He also worries about proliferation. Well folks, Pakistan got a bomb, North Korea got a bomb, and Iran is getting one. Hate to say it, but it's already too late. The bigger proliferation problem is the enormous flow of oil money into the middle-east and african nations, and the western world's unhealthy dependance on these nations. Energy security trumps proliferation, in my view.

4. Build What You Have

Wald suggests that the GNEP vision (which is essentially based on fast reactors) might hamper the current new build of commercial nuclear plants. That's a valid concern. It's crucial that we build the plants we have now. That's how all industries grow and prosper...build what you have, tinker and improve it later after you've got a healthy cashflow and vendor/engineer infrastructure in place. In fact, I've been interviewing a lot of retired nuclear industry leaders lately, and they all make that point. "Build what you have now! Resist chasing the new designs, because then you'll never build anything!"

5. But Vision Is Important. Perhaps Crucial.

But you also can't stop researching new designs. We will need the fast reactor option in place in 20 or 30 years. That is a clear vision for the future of the planet and a vision which could serve the human race, and provide a clean energy civilization for the next century at least. That's a hell of an important vision.

In fact you might find that this vision -- of a healthy clean future for all of human civilization -- might be crucial to the future of nuclear power. As you've probably seen me talking about (endlessly) on this blog, I think we are at an important turning point for the human race. China and India between them are attemping to raise their 2 billion citizens, 1/3rd of the human race from poverty to dignity in the next few decades. That is an awesome moral crusade for the human race. Nuclear power could be the keystone of that effort, just as the Tennessee Valley Authority hydroelectric project of the 1930's was the keystone of the Rural Electrification projects of that time in the US.

Nuclear power could be seen as a symbol of an amazing future for human civilization. Nuclear power and Wind and Solar, as partners, could be even better. The question, what leader will step up to deliver this vision to the waiting public?

6. Nuclear Engineers Might be Too Cynical and Dry. Time to Spice it Up?

Many nuclear engineers are uncomfortable with this kind of talk. I don't blame them. Let's face it, it sounds like hype, and the nuclear industry got severly burned by this kind of hype in the 60s. Nuclear industry people prefer to be quiet and behind-the-scenes. They just want to build some reactors, get them licensed, start generating, and turn their reactors into enormous cash cows. Not a bad plan at all.

But you still have to have vision, because the public needs it. Dry, purely functional engineering just isn't quite enough in today's world. You need some flair, and some vision, and some sex appeal. If for no other reason, you need a little sex appeal if you want to attract students into your nuclear engineering degree programs, and develop your nuclear workforce.

7. In Conclusion.

So just like anything in life, there is a balance that needs to be struck. In this case the balance will lie between "build what you have now" and "plan new visions for the future". Hopefully the Bush administration and whatever administration takes power in 2008 will be able to make this balance.

Another Reason Celluostic Ethanol is a False Hope

2006-07-09T07:14:00.000-07:00

Part of being a nuclear advocate is debunking the endless stream of poorly-thought-out energy "solutions" that pop up. For example, the latest ethanol craze.

Here is a great article in the Washington Post debunking ethanol.

But celluostic ethanol has an even bigger problems that aren't mentioned:

Celluostic agricultural waste is ALREADY being used to generate electricity. It's being burned in waste-burning plants to generate electricity. Sawdust (which is often cited as a source) has been burned to power the sawmills and surrounding communities for decades.

If we converted existing sources of ag waste to ethanol production, we'd experience a decrease in energy efficiency. Burning this waste in a typical power plant is actually pretty efficient. Something on the order of 25% or 30% efficient. The creation of ethanol would be much less efficient -- there's no way that a giant ethanol "cooking" plant full of cellulose-consuming bacteria will be anything better than 10% efficient converting the calories to useful energy.

Even if we do grow millions of additional tons of switchgrass or other energy crops, they're unlikely to become ethanol. They'll simply get burned to generate electricity. This will happen because burning them is the cheapest, easiest, and most profitable way to use the resource. The american midwest is full of coal and waste-burning plants who are hungry for green energy sources. These plants already exist, they are already running, and they will quickly, cheaply, and efficiently use up all the available energy crops.

Think of it this way...you're a switchgrass-growing farmer. You can sell your crop to the local coal burning plant (which pays a much higher price, and which generates carbon abatement and pollution abatement credits when it burns your crop in place of coal). Or you could sell your switchgrass crop to the ethanol factory and get paid 1/2 the price. Who do you think you'll sell to?

Burning switchgrass instead of coal -- easy, cheap, already happening.

What's the point? There is very little net energy to be had in current agricultural waste, and any future growth of ag waste or energy crops will be best used for electrical production, not ethanol. Yes there are waste streams that can't be burned (amimal waste, etc) but these are reletively small. Celluostic ethanol will require a lot of new research, new technolgy, investments in new plants, and a lot of other complexity. Will it be worth it? Probably not.

Why do I care? In this and other pro-nuclear blogs, we've observed for years that in western society, especially american society, we've seen a rash of "energy sources" which are hyped to the public, many of which are technically unsound, yet the general public grabs onto them. It's a major obstacle to the logical development of real "green" energy sources like nuclear power.

Chinese Coal Burning -- The Environmental Disaster of the Century

2006-07-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

Every time I read someone complain about the dangers of nuclear waste, it makes me wonder if they live on the same planet as I do. No offense, but really...

At this moment, China is burning billions of metric tons of coal, in plants that are absolutely filthy...no pollution controls whatsoever. Consumption of coal is set to double within the next few years. Compared to this very real environmental disaster--a disaster that is happening right now, as you read this--the risks of nuclear waste are insignificant.

Coal Link 1

...Mr. Feickert concludes that China's expected push for coal could have serious consequences in environmental and energy issues worldwide. If the Chinese coal
consuming and industry production development is not assisted properly by the Western world, he fears that an "incipient oil price shock could become very real, even provoking a world recession". This rising coal consumption will inevitably lead to a drastic rise in CO2...

Coal Link 2

About 70% of China's energy comes from coal, and that share has been rising as the country has doubled its consumption of coal over the last four years. China passed the U.S. in 2002, and it now uses more coal than any other country ...

But boosting its use of coal is worsening China's already grim environmental record. The global atmosphere can't take this increase," says Janet Sawin, director of the worldwatch Institute's Energy & Climate Change Program. To cut pollution, China wants to produce more clean-burning coal, which Shenhua's Shendong mine does, and build more efficient and less-polluting power plants. It's also using more natural gas and building nuclear power plants, but those will make up only a tiny part of its energy usage for years to come...

A few important points:

-Wind, solar, and other renewables are "targeted" at 10% of Chinese energy, going forward, and I've seen some environmentalists call this a big win. I don't get it. 90% of the energy is still NOT renewables. Only 4% Nuclear. Only 8% Hydro. That leaves 70-80% of their energy in the hands of coal. The most filthy, polluting, ecosystem-degenerating type of pollutant.

-Hydroelectric has a very bad reputation in China simply because there are no hydro sites to be developed that don't involved the displacement of millions of subsistence farmers. So much for THAT renewable option.

-Talk about "conservation" is nice but irrelevant. China has a billion people who are already using tiny amounts of energy. Any growth of any kind will be huge. No amount of conservation can change that.

-Nuclear power is the only power source that could possibly make a dent in the ecological disaster of Chinese Coal.

If Green-minded people really care about the ecosystem, they should pool their money and immediately fund research into fast, inexpensive nuclear reactor construction techniques, and then take it to China.

Nuclear Market May be Much Larger Than We Think

2006-06-21T10:37:00.000-07:00

Back in Novemember we predicted that, based on experience with technology marketing, we might expect the nuclear "renaissance" to be larger than most people expect. Much larger.

Link here...

Far from being dead, the nuclear power industry is just now entering its main growth phase.

Another Stake in the Heart of "Not Enough Uranium"

2006-06-21T10:32:00.000-07:00

The UN International Atomic Energy Agency released its "Red Book" study of global Uranium supplies. Guess what? There is at least enough for 85 years, and they note that worldwide prospecting will likely uncover lots more.

Link here...

With new technology, they noted, we have enough Uranium for 2,500 years.

Ted Turner Fans, Check This Out...

2006-06-14T22:42:00.000-07:00

For those of you who enjoy the frequently-amusing comments from Ted Turner, here are some comments on nuclear power.

Ted Turner knows there are dangers associated with nuclear plants. He
acknowledges the risk of meltdown and the possibility of reactors being targeted
by terrorists. But if those issues can be worked out, he says, an expanded nuclear power program might be a viable, environmentally sound option in America’s critical search for alternative energy sources.

“I’ve got an open mind about nuclear power and I think it would be good to have a public debate about it,” he says. “Let’s give it another look.”

Pro-Global Warming Crashes into Anti-Nuclear

2006-06-12T17:17:00.000-07:00

We predict that, looking back at today, historians will note the collapse of large parts of the environmental movement as it currently exists. One of the top reasons is their stubbon anti-nuclear stance.

Here is the key thing:

Environmentalists cannot be both pro-global warming and stridently anti-nuclear and keep the respect of any objective, reasonably intelligent audience.

The two positions are inherently contradictory, and any attempt “explain away” or distract from that contradiction will fall flat. Always. It is a losing political argument. Always.

Russian, China, Britain Confirm Nuclear Renaissance

2006-06-11T21:00:00.000-07:00

In the past week, national leaders have been falling all over themselves to renew their commitment to nuclear power...

Russia

"MOSCOW REGION, June 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will start constructing two nuclear power units a year inside the country beginning in 2007 to make the country competitive on the world markets, Russia's top nuclear official said Friday. "

China

"ONE of China's top planners has pledged Beijing's commitment to a massive expansion of the country's nuclear generation capacity over the next 15 years."

Britain

"Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown endorsed nuclear power in an article in the Times this weekend, making it more likely that the Government will commission new plants."

France...

Just kidding! France has more power than they can use. They switched their electrical grid to nuclear power years ago. So now they are planning to sell to the Brits.

Debunking the "Not Enough Uranium" Myth

2006-06-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

On a regular basis we see an objection to nuclear power that says "There's not enough uranium, we're going to run out in 20 (or 50, or whatever) years"

This is absolute nonense. Here are the facts:

There are huge deposits of uranium lying undiscovered in the world. The only reason we don't know about them is because nobody has bothered exploring for decades, because demand was flat and prices were rock bottom. There is easily more available energy in the uranium than the total of all oil and gas every burned in the world.

Based on recent upticks in price, there is already an exploration boom.

Here is a report just released, stating that there is plenty of uranium.

Increases in uranium have very little impact on the price of nuclear energy, because so little of it is used. You could triple or quadruple again the price of uranium and it would add only 10% to cost of fuel. With oil or other fossil fuels, a triple in fuel price translates almost directly to electricity cost.

In fact, that is what makes nuclear such an attractive power source for many nations: once built, they are almost immune to fuel costs. Many reactors buy enough fuel for 10 years and simply store it on site. They can then ignore price changes.

Reactors are already improving their fuel efficiency. Remember that current reactors get the equivalent of 3 miles per gallon. New reactors could easily double or triple their efficiency. 20 years from now, reactors will double or triple their efficiency again. In 40 years the new reactors won't need new fuel at all because they'll be burning the waste left over from the current reactors, getting 5 times more energy from that waste than was obtained originally.

Remember that the people who fund the reactors, who are investing BILLIONS of dollars, wouldn't do so if they felt for even a moment that they were going to run out of fuel. They know it's a non-issue.

The uranium shortage thing is myth. Let's focus on real issues.

Bogus Anti-Nuclear Poll of the Day

2006-05-31T19:24:00.000-07:00

Although we try to avoid the pro/con arguments over nuclear power, we couldn't resist mentioning this little doozy. A group called the Civil Society Institute released a poll showing what they claim is broad opposition to nuclear power.

The funny thing is, even a cursory read of the poll questions shows that they are utterly biased...not even remotely honest. For example:

Over three-fifths of Americans (62 percent) agree with the statement: "The energy and global warming problem is happening now. We need most of the emphasis placed on immediate and near-term solutions that will deliver fast results" such as "solar energy and wind power" and "increased conservation." Less than a third of Americans think most of the emphasis should be on "solutions that will deliver results a decade from now or later" such as "nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells."

Note how carefully the question is constructed to ensure the answer the poll taker wanted.

They start with an obvious question "We need most of the emphasis placed on immediate and near-term solutions that will deliver fast results". Of course, everybody will agree with that question. Having got that easy agreement, they then sneaked their favored solutions "solar and wind power" onto the list (depite the historic fact that wind and solar power aren't short term solutions, quite the opposite).

That's the equivalent of asking somebody "do you want to vote for a smart, honest, and handsome person -- our candidate -- or do you want to vote for a horrible scumbag -- the opposition?"

California Part II -- The Shifting Debate

2006-05-29T06:55:00.000-07:00

Part II: How Has the Debate Shifted? Has the Media Missed the Change?

Most media coverage is still focused on the old “pros verses cons” of nuclear power. But as we said earlier, we believe that old debate is largely irrelevant in the minds of most thought leaders. As people re-consider nuclear power, they are thinking about the issues from a completely different perspective.

Let’s look at this new paradigm and attempt to re-frame the nuclear debate in terms that better match what people are thinking today.

Global Warming vs. Nuclear Waste

Old Debate: Do we have a solution for nuclear waste?
New Debate: Is waste from fossil fuels is a much bigger problem? If so then maybe nuclear waste isn’t such a bad alternative.

Over past few years, global warming has become the premiere environmental issue. Al Gore has made tremendous progress educating the public about its dangers, culminating in a movie called “An Inconvenient Truth” – playing at a cinema near you!

But the very success of the Global Warming campaign is what drives people to take a second look at nuclear power. In theory, carbon dioxide emissions are creating enormous systemic changes in the ecosystem. Flooding, acidic ocean water, die-off of species, reversal of the Atlantic current…all these point to massive, widespread, and devastating changes, which are predicted to impoverish or displace millions of people.

Compared to this, nuclear waste starts to look like a minor problem. For example:

• Although nuclear waste is extraordinarily dangerous (everyone admits that), a very tiny amount of it can substitute for relatively huge amounts of carbon waste. One barrel of nuclear waste prevents millions of barrels of carbon waste.

• Carbon waste has a unique problem: it is always immediately spewed into the atmosphere…it is “polluting the commons.” On the other hand, nuclear waste is never spewed into the global environment. It is retained by the original nation which produced it. It is almost impossible to ship. So nuclear waste does not “pollute the commons.” By definition , nuclear waste forces the society who create it to be responsible for it. From this perspective, the argument could be made that nuclear waste is the more environmentally responsible choice, compared to carbon waste.

• Yes, nuclear waste is a potential risk, but that’s still an “if”. If the barrels leak. If terrorists manage to bypass rings of military protection. If the barren wastes of Nevada suddenly become desirable real estate. Many unlikely things would need to happen, in order for nuclear waste to become a major disaster. On the other hand, carbon waste is causing a disaster, right now, on a global scale.

• Many environmentalists have supported carbon dioxide sequestration, a technology which aims to pump these millions of tons of carbon waste into the ground or deep ocean. But this highlights the problem: how can people complain about “no solution” for nuclear waste, when there is clearly “no solution” for carbon waste either? And the huge volume of carbon waste makes it a much more difficult waste problem to solve.

In summary:

What’s worse, a few barrels of nuclear waste stored somewhere in the middle of the Nevada desert, which “might” leak and poison a very small local area…

-Or-

Millions of tons of carbon dioxide and coal smoke spewed into the atmosphere, which is already causing massive worldwide destruction?

Renewables Vs. The French Success

Old Debate: We should try to convert to mostly renewable sources.
New Debate: France converted 75% of their electrical grid to nuclear power in a few decades. Why don’t we do the same thing?

For decades society has discouraged nuclear power and encouraged conservation, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. There have been big government subsidies, tax credits (especially in California) and investment in dozens of new technology startups and research programs.

These efforts have produced promising results, but nowhere near the promises made by supporters of the technology. Decades later, the slow growth of renewables has left a gap, filled by burning ever more millions of tons of coal every year. As we’ll describe later in this paper, the state of California has met the vast majority of it’s electric need with natural gas and is planning to meet much of it’s future needs with coal.

Electrical demand is skyrocketing, and it shows no signs of slacking off. If we subtract “old style” renewables like hydropower, geothermal, and trash burning, which are largely tapped out, the actual contribution of wind and solar and tidal power are still a few percent or less of demand.

When debating nuclear power, opponents say “yes, but nuclear power couldn’t meet the need either”. However, every major government knows this argument is false. The nuclear industry is quite capable of building astronomical numbers of additional capacity, outstripping wind and solar power by a huge magnitude.

The proof? Simple. France converted their entire electrical grid to non-carbon emitting in a mere 25 years. They did this by building over 50 nuclear reactors, mass-production style. These reactors have been humming away for years, and the French have been quietly enjoying the cleanest air and lowest rates in Europe. Indeed, they export a great deal of the electricity that provides stability to the electrical grid when the wind turbines in Denmark and Spain stop turning.

Any national government can say: “If France can convert their grid, why can’t we?”

The US and Britain know that their nuclear industries are capable of similar feats. The nuclear industry in the US was on track to build hundreds more reactors, before the slowdown stopped them. This is why leaders are re-considering nuclear power. They know it works, and can be delivered in mass quantities. On the other hand, wind and solar, while promising, have been much slower than promised.

The prudent choice is to do both. Why take chances?

Iran, Pakistan, and Proliferation

Old debate: nuclear plants create plutonium, which can be used for bombs.
New debate: nuclear plants reduce oil imports, so overseas dictators have less money to buy bombs on the black market .

Proliferation has been the most dangerous consequence of nuclear power. In the past, the argument has been that more nuclear reactors create greater danger of nuclear weapons.

However, that argument is now being superseded by a less black-and-white, more mature view. For example in the past decade both North Korea and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. An recent article in the Atlantic Monthly magazine gave a harrowing picture of the black market, and gray market suppliers, that provided the means to build these bombs.

What becomes clear is that these bombs can be created independent of the commercial nuclear power industry. The materials and expertise can be purchased from Russia or China, or other nuclear nations—for a price.

With the current standoff between the US and Iran, in which Iran proclaims its right to build nuclear weapons, the primary issue is oil money. The US and the world is so dependant on the oil exports from or adjacent to Iran, that this gives Iran a “chokehold” on the world, and uncounted billions of dollars, to use as leverage.

All over the world, dictators and hostile nations are enjoying the power that comes with 70 dollar per barrel oil. They can use that money, and that power, to seek nuclear weapons, in addition to repressing their own people.

How can that oil price be reduced? How can every nation have energy security – which is in this age equivalent to military and economic security?

Answer: More nuclear power, less dependence on foreign energy imports.

The Reverse-Cherynobyl effect

Old argument: What about the risk of accidents, like Chernobyl?
New argument: Despite Chernobyl, the Ukrainians are building more nuclear reactors. What do they know that we don’t?

On the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, perhaps the most under-reported story was that the Ukraine is building new nuclear reactors. The Ukraine government announced intention for additional nuclear reactors, to supplement their existing sites.

The Ukrainians have personally experienced the worst-case accident, and yet they appear to be turning back to nuclear power. They will still debate, and may yet reduce or change their plans, but still: after 10 years of nuclear freeze, they are re-considering nuclear power. Why?

• They don’t want to freeze. They are dependant on Russia for gas imports. Russia has already halted energy shipments for political reasons and clearly is willing to do so again. This threatened energy embargo is a weapon that threatens the Ukrainians security and their freedom.

• Nuclear power has risks, but all industrial processes have risks. Thousands of people were killed in Bhopal, India, in a pesticide plant disaster, yet the world has not banned the manufacture of pesticides. Every year there are coal mining accidents, yet coal mining is not banned. Oil refineries can explode. Hydroelectric dams collapse.

• Modern reactors are infinitely safer. The Ukrainians recognize that the Chernobyl reactor disaster was a very old, poorly designed and run reactor. It was the equivalent of a Model-T car. Modern reactors are infinitely better, infinitely safer, and have an incredible safety record. The Ukraine can look intelligently at risks and say “well, in the past we had a problem, but in the future we can see it’s a safe route.”

Conclusion

We haven’t tried to describe every possible argument pro and con. There are many other places to see that debate. Opponents of nuclear power are unlikely to be convinced by these arguments. We simply want to show how the argument has changed, and is continuing to evolve, and this is why nuclear power is getting a second look from many.

The New Era of Nuclear Power: Will California Be Left Behind?

2006-05-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

A Position Paper by iNuclear.Org

Ed Note. At the Nuclear Assembly last week in San Francisco, we asked attendees: “What do you think is going to happen in California? Is California going to be a significant part of the new nuclear revival, either as a buyer of reactors, or as a supplier of technology to new reactors?” The answers were disheartening. The general perception by the group, and by extension for the rest of the world (as they change to supporters of nuclear power) was not at all positive for the state's image. This article is the first of 4 parts.

PART I: The International Scene

In the 1970s, the attempt to pass an Anti-Nuclear Proposition 15 made California the spiritual heart of the movement to halt nuclear power. After the rapid post-WWII nuclear expansion, citizens and leaders throughout the world stopped to ask: “Do we really want to build this many nuclear reactors? Is nuclear energy the right path to follow for the future of our world?”

Now, after 30 years of this debate, the answer appears to be “Yes”. With surprising speed, the world community of thinkers, leaders, citizens, and even environmentalists are deciding in favor of nuclear power. The nuclear power industry, which had been declared all but dead by opponents, has suddenly revived and to the shock of many, looks healthy indeed.

Of course there will be continued debate, but it is likely to be moot. Fears over global warming, out-of-control energy costs, and dangerous international politics are driving the change, and the pro-nuclear case is gaining speed. It’s a new technological trend, still at the early stages but unmistakable.

As the long nuclear debate resolves itself, the state of California doesn’t look good. Far from being the technology leaders, we are in danger of being laggards, holding tight to old and out-of-date policies while the rest of the world moves ahead. Our energy future is not only stagnating, but may in fact be backsliding…devolving towards more primitive, dirtier forms of energy. For a state that has long relied on a competitive edge based on it’s perception as a technology center, this is a dangerous situation.

Nations Shift Their Stance

Where are these historic shifts happening? At the Nuclear Energy Assembly meeting last week in San Francisco, the leaders of the new nuclear industry described case after case:

• In the UK, Prime Minister Tony Blair and most of his government have all but capitulated to the need to re-build and perhaps expand nuclear power. Wind and other renewables are simply unable to fill the need.

• In Europe, alarm over global warming, pressures from the Kyoto protocol, and the ever-growing dangers of middle eastern and Russian energy has even staunch greens saying “well, we don’t like it, it’s not our first choice, but we can’t live without it”.

• France already gets 75% of their electricity from nuclear power, and they are smugly enjoying the lowest stable electric rates, and the lowest carbon dioxide emission rates, in the world.

• China has 14 reactors working or under construction, another 58 proposed by 2020, and there is public discussion of thousands more. Chinese energy is primarily based on coal burning, which is taking an enormous toll on air and lungs. Their hydroelectric program has serious grassroots opposition from displaced citizens. So their need for nuclear, for practical purposes, is infinite. India already has an aggressive nuclear program. Between them, China and India have almost two billion people, almost a third of the human race that is striving to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become part of the clean, healthy, modern world. Two billion people demand an almost inconceivable amount of new energy, and the survival of the ecosystem may well depend on our ability to deliver that energy from clean sources.

• In the United States, 10 or more new reactors are in in the planning process, southern and midwestern states are competing to be the first new locations, and the federal government is seriously re-tooling their efforts to develop new reactor technologies, fix waste disposal, and reduce proliferation risks. Even as the Bush administration enters it’s last few years of power, it will leave behind significant changes, which subsequent administrations are unlikely to reverse.

• Finally, most important, nuclear power is no longer driven by the United States. It’s no longer just a local question. It’ a worldwide movement with worldwide consequences. Who will lead that movement?

Environmentalists for Nuclear

The environmental community is also shifting. Environmental provocateurs Patrick Moore, Steward Brand, and James Lovelock have led the change, and other environmental leaders from major organizations are beginning to jump in. Their increasing success at convincing the world to fear global warming has produced an unexpected result: the irresistible logic of nuclear power as a tool to save the ecosystem.

Finally, the ultimate shift. Public perception of nuclear power has improved quietly over the years. The great high-technology revolution of the past few years has created a generation of citizens who are technology-friendly and technology-savvy. They love their gadgets, love the Internet, and want the electricity to keep their servers and cellphones humming. They are capable of sophisticated judgments about the pros and cons of competing technologies. They are software engineers, biotech scientists, microwave engineers, chip manufacturers, and video game hackers. And they are open to nuclear power.

Why the 'i' in iNuclear?

2006-05-19T16:02:00.000-07:00

We like the name iNuclear because it evokes a different way of thinking about nuclear power.

The nuclear power of the past was, to be honest, closely associated with the post-WWII era. Even though it was called “Nukes for Peace” it was still an outgrowth of the military buildup of nuclear power and unfortunately associated with nuclear weapons. More specifically, much of the civilian nuclear industry was based on Nuclear Navy designs.

This is not any disparagement of the military or the Navy. Not at all. These organizations had, and still have, a huge positive effect on the nuclear world.

However, that first wave effectively ended in the mid-1970s, when the great slowdown in nuclear power construction occurred. From a practical perspective, and from a cultural or political perspective, it is extremely convenient to consider that time to be an “era” which ended. Therefore the nuclear renaissance, which we are now witnessing, can only be considered a different nuclear era.

For an earlier take on this idea, see our discussion of Nuclear Crossing the Chasm.

For this new era, we decided to have some fun and give it a name: iNuclear. This is the iNuclear Era.

Why "i"?

The “i” is a shorthand way of saying “we want to be viewed the same way as the iPod, Apple Computer, the internet, nanotech, biotech, and all the other cool new technologies.”

We think that nuclear power is the right and most appropriate power source for the technology future which is expanding so rapidly in front of us. This technology-friendly culture spans the world…travel to India, Scotland, China, Southern France, or even to Saudi Arabia, and you will see handsome young people chatting on their cellphones or sending email to each other. It’s a global phenomenon, the 4th great technology revolution of the human race.

And as we all know, all this technology takes electricity. A lot of electricity. Baseload electricity. And that electricity is best provided by nuclear power. Certainly not by coal, an energy source which belongs in the Victorian era, not today.

The “i” in iNuclear can also serve as a reminder. It is incumbent on us, as proponents of this next nuclear era, to do it differently. We need nuclear power to really be peaceful, and to eliminate any residual ties to the military world. That means we need create a nuclear industry that is in every way designed for peace, from top to bottom: in fuel design, reactors, reprocessing, waste disposal, financing, insurance, and international relations. Even more, we need to divorce our own minds utterly from the military mindset, and think only and forever about nuclear power as a peace-based technology.

A great example of this is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership recently announced by the Bush administration.

Again, we're not criticizing the military world, simply recognizing that a complete separation is not only healthy, but the natural next step.

"Unsung Heros of the Environment" in SF Today

2006-05-18T19:36:00.000-07:00

The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored their "Assembly" meeting in San Francisco this week, and I was fortunate enough to visit for a day. As I strolled around, the most noticeable thing was how friendly people were. The nuclear business has not been very popular for many years, so the people in it must by definition like what they are doing, and they tend to treat each other with great courtesy and cheer.

This meeting had an amazing attendance...several governors, ex-governors, CEOs of major firms, and US government officials. President Bush made a speech, by video. Environmentalists Patrick Moore and Steward Brand were there, as always speaking the unassailable logic of nuclear power as the best hope for planet earth.

Then, among all these big players, there were a number young college students and new hires. They had a seperate meeting the day before and some stayed around to watch. What was so impressive was that, mingling among the VIPs, the college students were accepted, welcomed, and encouraged. Where else is there a multi-billion dollar heavy industry in which high-level meetings are so open to new faces?

An optimistic day. These are people who have been steadily working, day in, day out, under adverse conditions, delivering gigawatts of ultra-clean electricity to their neighbors. Now those neighbors are just beginning to recognize the effort, and be thankful.

People in the nuclear industry are the unsung heros of the environment. While others have talked (and talked) about saving the earth, the people of the nuclear industry have been doing it, in a big, practical way, which is a lot more useful than just talking.

Nuclear Electricity, Coal into Fuel, Bye-Bye Oil Imports

2006-05-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

Just for fun, I suggest people spend a few minutes reading about coal-to-fuel conversion. The technology has been known for decades, but unti now it's been too expensive.

The key fact is, we could stop importing foreign oil any time. It's absolutely feasible. The steps would be:

1. Convert the US electrical grid to 60% Nuclear. Absolutely possible...the French did it for their system in 25 years.

2. Convert existing coal plants to conversion facilities that make diesel.

Bingo. Economic security, reduced military problems, and good for the ecosystem too (This would cut CO2 emissions by 20% or so)

Of course, it's not that easy. The two simple steps outlined above involve billions of dollars and wrenching economic changes. It's probably not feasible from a political and social perspective. But there's no technological barrier.

There is plenty of energy sources around. We just have to take steps to get them in place.

California Can, and Must, Be a Leader in the New Nuclear Era

2006-05-11T22:43:00.000-07:00

Across the world, public and government opinion is crystallizing in favor of nuclear power. And it’s already evolving into practical action.

In Florida, Louisiana, and other states with significant nuclear workforces and histories of safe operation, nuclear power is being pursued aggressively. These people recognize a great deal when they see it: jobs, clean technology, inexpensive energy, economic growth, and a safety track record better than almost any other industry they can attract. In the federal government, the shock over oil prices and threats to energy security by rogue states have changing nuclear power from an option to a “must have’. If you have any doubt about the seriousness of government planners, read this.

The next phase of the nuclear world…what we like to call the iNuclear era, has started.

But here in California (the home state of this humble blogger) we seem to be a bit behind. This is based perhaps on a misunderstanding.

Californians, environmentally aware and comfortable with advanced technology, have been agressively pursuing solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. This has seemed the obvious complement to the clean, dignified, high-technology lifestyle which we want to create. Many of us, so focused on renewables, have made the understandable mistake of viewing renewables are the only valid solution, which are always and inherently opposed to nuclear power.

This view is incorrect.

The reality is, nuclear power and renewables (and of course aggressive conservation) can and in fact MUST be pursued together. This is the only possible way that our nation, and the rest of the world, can survive the coming centuries. Renewables and conservation, by themselves, are simply not up to the task.

This is not just an opinion, it is simple reality, shown by decades of headlines. In 30 years of hard work, despite constant government funding and tax credits, the growth of actual generating capacity by wind and solar energy sources has been horrifically slow – a tiny fraction of what was promised by promoters of the technology.

While we should try for better results in the next 30 years, we must, as responsible stewards of this planet, make intelligent and appropriate decisions. We must assume, as reasonable people, that renewable energy will continue it’s snail-like pace. We cannot allow massive coal burning in Wyoming, or natural gas burning in local generating plants to become the “lowest common denominator” energy sources. We must choose a practical, realistic mix of earth-friendly energy sources. And that means both renewables and nuclear power must be active choices.

Plus, nuclear power and renewables are a great fit. Two peas in a pod.
Renewables tend to be variable, sporatic, and local in nature. They work great when the wind is blowing or sun is shining, but otherwise need a back-up baseload grid to depend on. Nuclear power is great for the baseload grid. Reactors, especially the new designs, can ramp up or ramp down when not needed. Those are the engineering reasons, and there are economic and social ones as well. The bottom line is, we need them both.

So what’s the point? California needs nuclear power. With the problems in our grid, we need it sooner than later. As a start, double all capacity at the existing plants, and talk to other states about buying their “doubled” power as well.

But let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about business. In addition to more nuclear power in our grid, California also needs to be a significant part of the nuclear business. We need to get our industrial and high-tech resources into the building, equipping, maintaining, supplying, or staffing of nuclear infrastructure. It’s going to become a much larger industry, an industry perceived as an essential piece of the high-tech future. Nuclear power is inherently and by definition a high-technology energy source. So California, if it wants to maintain it’s status as a leader in the high-technology world, needs to be a significant player in the new nuclear power industry. It’s a simple as that.

How? That’s a big topic and we’ll cover it more later.

What Can We Do to Build the Nuclear Workforce?

2006-05-04T10:26:00.000-07:00

We've predicted that very quickly, the debate over nuclear power will switch from "should we build reactors?" to "We need Nuclear power yesterday! Hurry! Hurry! Oh no! We don't have enough engineers!"

This is the typical boom-bust cycle of the world, but in this case it appears to be amplified.

For example, here is a recent article on "The Brain Drain."

The important question is, as the world recognizes the crucial nature of nuclear power, who will be able to ramp up the quickest? How will we handle this problem in the US?

A few points:

We need to institute policies to record and preserve the knowledge of retiring engineers. Many of them are "just retired" and still possessing great reserves of untapped knowledge. Fortunately there are some significant new technologies recently developed, especially in the training management and skills planning field, which improve our ability to "record" expertise properly.
We need to build up our nuclear university departments, student recruiting, and research funding. This is pretty obvious.
Finally we need to start looking at policy changes and hiring practices that encourage experienced nuclear personnel to move to those nations that are in the fastest growth curve.

Anybody else out there have some thoughts? We'd like to explore this topic in detail.

We're Back!

2006-05-01T10:24:00.000-07:00

Hello all. We've been out of commission for a few months but now back to continue watching the excitement in the Nuclear industry.

Anti-Nuke to Get Steamrolled, part II

2005-11-27T19:35:00.000-08:00

Prediction:

Over the next decade, anti-nuke activists will ramp up their opposition to nuclear power and will be largely ignored by most national leaders.

Here's why: the governments of the world have studied the issues involved, carefully weighed their national interests and the best interests of their citizens, and finally, have considered oil at $ 60 dollars a barrel.

These deliberations are happening in the US, Canada, UK, Europe, Asia, China, and a number of other nations.

The result of these deliberations are as follows: most governments have decided it is in their national interests to continue building nuclear reactors. They will pretend to listen to public input, but after a bit of rhetoric and hand-waving, they'll just continue building.

They have concluded, quite rightly, that most of the public are not technically savvy enough to make intelligent decisions about power generation, especially decisions that involve 40 or 50 year planning horizons, and in any case, the anti-nukes, while they shout very loudly, are far in the minority. The anti-nuclear arguments are so illogical, and often so contradictory, that they turn into random noise.

That's pretty much the end of that story. We'll see the media thrashing and beating this issue to death; there will be rallies and protests. And none of this will make much difference.

Anti-Nuke Organizations to Get Steamrolled

2005-11-27T19:22:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair has signaled he is moving in the same direction.

"Blair seems to have fallen for the nuclear industry's propaganda campaign," Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper told Reuters. "But it is the wrong decision. Nuclear is unsafe, the technology untested and in any case far too expensive."

The shift took the green lobby by surprise after it believed it had won the argument against nuclear power years ago.

It's strange to see the consternation of the anti-nuclear people. How naive can they be? As soon as Blair and the others in the UK government really started to believe in global warming, and considered the potential disasterous effect on Britain, then at that point they are more or less guaranteed to start building nuclear power plants in a frenzy. It's a predictable response.

That's the inevitable outcome of the Kyoto accord: more nuclear power plants. Any environmentalists who don't understand why it's the inevitable outcome should whip out their calculators and do some political math.

This Month's Scientific American: Nuclear Power With 1/100th the Waste

2005-11-22T09:52:00.000-08:00

Great article in December issue of Scientific American, describing a new type of nuclear reactor.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000

This is a new, more advanced reactor design which:

- Produces as little as 1/100th the waste, and uses 1/100th the fuel, as the normal reactors we use today.

- Uses a new type of fuel processing, almost completely eliminating potential for nuclear proliferation.

- Can burn leftover fuel (what we currently call "waste") from the current nuclear reactors.

- Is inherently safe.

These new reactors could literally power all of human civilization, for many hundreds or thousands of years, without a hiccup.

These reactors require no major scientific breakthroughs. This isn't like fusion. They have already built one (the IFR reactor, tested in 1993) and proven that it works. Yes, there would be many years of hard engineering and testing required to perfect them...they are at least 20 years away, and more likely 40 years away.

The US and other nations have formed a consortium (Generation IV consortium) to do joint design on these reactors. It's a international cooperative project, much like a human voyage to Mars might be, but in this case, the goal is much more practical--to produce a clean carbon-free power source for the future of human civilization.

Once the reactor is perfected and commercialized, the plan would be to build 3 or 4 of the new reactors "next door" to each of our existing reactors, and for the first few decades, just burn up the leftover fuel the existing reactors. .

Yes, you heard right folks. For the first few decades of use, these reactors would actually BURN WASTE. Output of nuclear-generated electricity might increase 500% while the amount of waste drops.

By the way, for this plan to work, we need to build more of the current (2005 model) reactors. We should at least double our "fleet" of current reactors over the next couple decades. Why not? Their spent fuel can be re-used as fuel for the new design, and it gives us clean, green, dependable energy in the meantime. Plus it keeps the nuclear industry healthy so they can keep pouring effort into safety and cost improvements.

Article in the LA Weekly

2005-11-11T09:28:00.001-08:00

Interesting article in the LA weekly about the pros and cons of nuclear power:

...We regularly wake up to find evidence in our mainstream newspapers of an ecology gone awry due to warming seas and blistering droughts — disappearing cold-water plankton and starving seabirds in the Shetland Islands, the Russian ship that
sailed to the North Pole in August without the aid of an icebreaker, the sudden disappearance of certain butterfly species in Baja. In light of these conditions, almost anything seems better than burning more coal, which for every
megawatt of power blasts a ton of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the skies. This is one reason why nuclear has reemerged as a viable source of energy for new power plants — not just among George W. Bush and his business buddies (who like the idea of more nuclear and more coal), but even among futurists,
environmentalists and Democrats in the U.S. Senate, from quasi-Republican Joe Lieberman to new hope Barack Obama.

Overview: The New Case For Nuclear Power

2005-11-10T23:04:00.000-08:00

Why are people changing their minds on nuclear power? Here’s a summary:

The reasons “for” nuclear are more compelling

• Soaring energy demand

• Entry of 2 billion human citizens (China and India) into world economy – even larger spikes in energy demand

• Stagnant oil output

• Painfully slow construction of wind/solar

• War and terrorism – concerns about the “price” of overseas energy sources

• Global warming – still hotly contested, but the people who believe it are probably in the majority.

The reasons “against” nuclear are weakening

• Waste – not as big a problem as people have claimed. Plus, people are now beginning to acknowledge the bigger problem of billions of tons of waste from coal and gas-fired plants. Compared to the threat of global warming (the destruction of entire nations) a few barrels of nuclear waste looks trivial.

• Safety – nuclear industry has built a great record, especially compared to the coal, oil, and chemical industries, which cause many more deaths. Even some of the anti-nuclear advocates admit that Chernobyl was not representative of nuclear energy in general, but was a fluke based on very old, very bad Soviet designs.

• Radiation – again, people are viewing this with more perspective. There are thousands, (perhaps millions) dying of lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses caused by choking coal/oil pollution. There are automobile accidents, viruses, and the million other daily hazards. Compared to that, the odds of getting sick from the miniscule amount of radiation emitted by nuclear plants is insignificant.

• Uranium supplies – some studies claim “we’re running out of uranium.” It’s simply not true.

• CO2 emissions– some studies claim that nuclear power emits almost as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuels. This isn't true either; in fact, it's quite the opposite.

• Economics – The price of gas-fired electricity just tripled in some areas. Amazing how economics can suddenly reverse. Many people are recognizing the advantage of nuclear: it’s not the cheapest, it’s not the most expensive, but it’s rock-solid, unaffected by world events. Stability in energy prices provides significant social and financial benefits. Plus, of all the energy technologies, nuclear has the biggest upside, the most room for order-of-magnitude cost reductions from new technology.

The “for” or “against” debate is irrelevant anyway

• Wind/solar/conservation can’t do it alone – many decades of experience has shown us that conservation, wind power, and solar power, while very desirable energy strategies, are just not capable of handling energy demand growth in even the developed nations. If we consider China and India, where energy growth is in overdrive, then the situation is even more impossible. Conservation, solar, wind, and other renewable technologies must be partnered with more “muscular” energy source. Which partner will it be…nuclear or coal? That’s the real debate.

• Nuclear power is like the automobile – like it or not, it’s a technology that is here to stay. The new focus won’t be “yes/no” but will be “how do improve it and eliminate the flaws?”

Why Greens are Converting to Nuclear

2005-11-09T23:11:00.000-08:00

Below are the writings from some prominent environmentalists and thinkers who have come out in favor of nuclear power. These are quoted endlessly by the pro-nuclear people, but are still good and cogent arguments.

Even for those of you readers who are suspicious of nuclear power, I urge you to read these with an open mind.

Patrick Moore, former founder of Greenpeace

Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.
I believe the majority of environmental activists, including those at Greenpeace, have now become so blinded by their extremism that they fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure America’s growing energy needs. These benefits far outweigh any risks.
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Stewart Brand, creator of Whole Earth Catalog

The primary cause of global climate change is our burning of fossil fuels for energy. So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.
Technology Review Article

BBC News

Nuclear power looks as if it should be the answer to all our energy conundrums, and perhaps even to climate change. It provides a steady stream of energy, and does not depend on hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. It is the nearest thing we have to a non-polluting energy source, apart from natural renewables. But it still engenders massive distrust, so much that many people say it can never be part of the way to avoid a disastrously warming world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4216302.stm

Mikko Elo, Finnish Member of Parliment

…if we are to help our economy as well as the environment, the answer has to be more nuclear power…We simply could not honour our commitments to the Kyoto Protocol without it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245298.stm

Wired Magazine

…we've searched for alternatives, pouring billions of dollars into windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. We've designed fantastically efficient lightbulbs, air conditioners, and refrigerators. We've built enough gas-fired generators to bankrupt California. But mainly, each year we hack 400 million more tons of coal out of Earth's crust than we did a quarter century before, light it on fire, and shoot the proceeds into the atmosphere. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html

The environmental movement, once staunchly antinuclear, is facing resistance from within.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html?pg=5

Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer-Prize Author and Historian

Shocking as the statement may sound after all the years of misrepresentation, nuclear power is demonstrably the greenest form of large‑scale energy generation at hand. France, by generating 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power,
has reduced its air pollution by a factor of five. The U.S. nuclear power industry, by improving capacity and performance alone, has already made the largest contribution of any American industry to meeting the U.S. Kyoto commitment to limiting CO2 releases into the atmosphere...

...from the nuclear power plant, about 20 cubic meters of spent fuel and low‑ and intermediate‑level waste, a volume so small (roughly the volume of two automobiles) that it can be and is meticulously sequestered from the environment; but from the fossil‑fuel plant, thousands of tonnes of greenhouse and noxious gases, particulates, heavy‑metal‑bearing (and radioactive) ash and solid hazardous waste, far too much to allow for sequestration even with the most stringent pollution controls.
http://www.house.gov/science/rhodes_072500.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20000101faessay4/richard-rhodes-denis-beller/the-need-for-nuclear-power.html

Has Nuclear "Crossed the Chasm?"

2005-11-08T11:10:00.000-08:00

“Crossing the Chasm” is a common marketing concept used in the high-technology field. Based on a popular book published in 1991, it refers to the process by which consumers and society adopt new technologies.

Although the Chasm is an imprecise (and some would argue outdated) concept, it is interesting to apply to the adoption of nuclear technology.

The Chasm describes a bell curve of technology adoption. In the first part of the curve, a new technology is hyped, eagerly embraced, grows rapidly. Then there is an inevitable dip, or pullback. The technology has been over-sold, people feel burnt, consumer demand is saturated, and competitors finally organize an effective counterattack. Orders dry up, and in some cases people believe “the technology is dead.” But it isn’t dead, it’s just in a lull. After some number of years, the technology rebounds and begins it’s largest growth phase.

Does nuclear technology fit into such a pattern? Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer prize winning author and nuclear historian, believes it does: "Nuclear grew too fast, slowed, and is poised to grow again." (Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, 2002, p66)

So what does all this tell us? If nuclear power is indeed following the Chasm model of adoption, then it's next phase of growth will be enormous – much larger than expected. (How big could a new nuclear power market become? We'll cover that topic in later posts).

Here are some other considerations:

• Nuclear technology provides a product – large scale energy – which is needed by all of human society. It’s impossible to overstate just how big this market is, and it’s growing much faster than expected.

• Large-scale energy isn’t optional. Without it, people starve, the social order collapses, or in the case of emerging economies, tight energy supply prevents people from achieving the level of prosperity to which they aspire.

• It’s got significant consequences for long-term health of the planet and the human race. One may or may not believe in global warming or peak oil, but the crucial point is, other people do believe it, and they are scared for the future of their children. That's a powerful motivator.

• There are no silver bullets or magic solutions to the problem. Human technology hasn’t found any way around the fact that energy is a limited resource. This means that, barring some unexpected scientific breakthrough, there will be little competition to nuclear power.

If nuclear power does become the next growth industry, then this has significant consequences for the technology communities in various nations. The world is a different place compared to 30 years ago, when the last reactors were built in the US. The new nuclear power industry is more competitive, with nations like Japan, China, India, Russia, France, and South Africa competing with the old-line vendors in the US, Britain, and Canada. With the levelizing effects of new high-technology global economy, these new competitors will be fast, aggressive, well-funded…almost “silicon valley” in their approach. Nuclear technology and licensing, which have moved at a slow pace dictated by government regulation, is likely to speed up.

On the other hand, nuclear power has unique dangers that other technologies simply don’t have to contend with, so it will remain an inherently conservative business.

Welcome to iNuclear

2005-11-07T09:12:00.000-08:00

Technology magazines often list the top 10 or 15 exciting technologies predicted to be “big” in the next decade. But there’s one technology which never makes the list, despite the fact that it's already a huge world player, is entering a period of rapid technological improvement, and will likely revolutionize a large swaths of human civilization. Of course, we’re talking about nuclear power…the next, most exciting growth phase of nuclear power.

There is still debate whether nuclear power is “dead” or “rising from the dead.” In fact, nuclear energy was never dead; it was never even close to dead. The slowdown of nuclear construction in the past 30 years was simply a natural, normal hiatus in the inevitable growth of a key human technology.

Here at iNuclear we'll be watching this renewal, especially as it relates to the world of high technology.

Here are some predictions:

• Nuclear technology is in a period of rapid advancement, with great gains being made in waste output, fuel usage, and safety which will bypass or eliminate most of the public’s worries about the technology. In the next 20 years, even greater improvements are on the horizon.

• In our globalized, high-tech civilization—with nanotechnolgy, biotechnology, quantum computers, and tourist hotels in space—nuclear power will be accepted as a reasonable, non-controversial, and appropriate power source to keep civilization humming. Our grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.

• We’re becoming painfully aware of our effect on the ecosystem, with global warming, acid oceans, and all the rest. Nuclear power will be seen as the obvious and straightforward way for the humanity to reduce it’s footprint on the surface of the planet.

• Nuclear power will become the key way to supply the insatiable, overwhelming thirst for energy from nations such as China and India. This will be seen as a good way to lessen rising tension between nations, who otherwise would be contesting scarce oil and gas sources

• The many billions of people in these nations, finally pulling themselves out of poverty and experiencing freedom from hunger and cold, will see nuclear power as an integral and essential part of their success. Widespread prosperity will cause human population levels to stabilize or decline.