May 18, 2006


Nuclear Power Will Drive the Future: Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and advantages over other sources. (Christine Todd Whitman & Patrick Moore, 5/18/06, Der Spiegel)

From the minute the alarm clock goes off in the morning, our lives are fueled by electricity. We are amazed at the seemingly endless parade of new, life-improving and life-saving technologies. But too little attention is paid to the looming shortage of energy needed to power them. We take for granted that the lights will come on at the flip of a switch.

The Department of Energy projects that the United States will need 45 percent more electricity by 2030. Where is this going to come from? Energy conservation, greater efficiencies in the production of natural gas, oil, coal and hydro power, and a genuine commitment to renewables such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will be needed.

Across America today, companies are reducing their demands for power without slowing their growth, but those efforts won't be enough in and of themselves. We will continue to need a mix of power sources, and nuclear energy must play an increased role in supplying America's growing demand for electricity.

Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and advantages over other sources.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 18, 2006 8:12 AM

Bollocks! Earth is running out of nuclear source-material like it is running out of oil and coal. The nuclear waste can't be isolated forever. If we produce more and more, generations in future have to face a radioactive wasted environment. The more powerplants we have, the higher the risk of an accident is. The costs of gaining Uranium are enourmous and melting the "high" efficency factor of nuclear plants down to LESS than coal plants. What about the destroyed landscapes where that stuff is harvested?

Nuclear technology is a yesterday-, cold war-technology, which we latest can't afford anymore, when we are out of oil. RETHINK! DON'T THINK in TANKS, STUPIDS!

Posted by: Hans at May 18, 2006 6:32 PM

Uh, Hans - I hate to disappoint you, but uranium is about the 4th most common material in the crust. And there is enough plutonium to last a long, long time (should we decide to go whole-hog with reprocessing, as the French have done).

All the high-level nuclear waste (commercial spent fuel) will fit in a volume the size of a tennis court, about 400 feet high. Not very much, when you think about it. Sorry.

"Cold-war technology" - I like that. But the physics was developed during a hot war. Does that count?

"Destroyed landscapes" - do you mean like the coal fields in Wyoming or the oil fields in Kuwait? And don't you think that land can be reclaimed? Look at the areas in the East (WV and PA) that have been 'fixed' - unless you're flying over them, you can barely tell there was a strip mine there.

I think your talking points are what is so yesterday, dude. Like 1969. You need a new template.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 18, 2006 7:26 PM

As Europe depopulates we can just keep the waste there.

Posted by: oj at May 18, 2006 7:49 PM

OJ - Too rich. But it might also help with the radical Islamic problem, too.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 18, 2006 8:05 PM

The uranium and thorium in a ton of granite has the energy of fifty tons of coal.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at May 19, 2006 1:01 AM

Very interesting. While the nuclear power industry uses its government subsidies to try to influence public opinion in their favor, the federal government in the U.S. puts up roadblocks to building alternative energy industries, like wind farms. So while we are supposed to fall in love with the idea of more Chernobyls, the Canadian government is subsidizing the building of wind farms on their plains area. Very interesting. Anybody want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Or real estate within a 250 miles of Chernobyl?

Posted by: Glenn Andersen at June 24, 2006 2:11 AM

The milk you had at breakfast came from the farms around Chernobyl.

Posted by: oj at June 24, 2006 9:22 AM