Having lived through the environmental movement in the late 60s through now it is hard to reconcile nuclear energy as either green or clean. We were led to not like nuclear energy or at to view it with derision. Culminating with the movie The China Syndrome being released a mere two weeks prior to an incident at the nuclear plant at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in March of 1979, and then there was the whole Cherynobyl thing in April of 1986 and of course those are just the incidents we are aware of. Of course keeping nuclear accidents a secret is not the easiest thing to do either, especially under the eyes of a paranoid public such as ours.
The last nuclear facility built in the United States was the River Bend plant in Louisiana. It was started in 1977 and came online for operation in 1986. With the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee being the last plant to go online in 1996 after having began being built in 1973. So basically we are talking about Flintstone era technologies, considering that the MP3 was barely available the during the last start up.
I read an article in Scientific American almost twenty years ago saying that there were newer technologies available that would allow us to benefit from smaller nuclear plants that would greatly reduce the risk involved in using nuclear energy. That was twenty years ago (okay so it was Scientific American, which is mostly well ahead of the curve). But the thing is, we ignore nuclear energy at our peril.
If you are like me, even in the least, you know we have more things plugged in today than at anytime in our lives. Although the technology has greatly reduced the items need for electricity, it has greatly increased the number of items needing electricity. So there was not really a gain there. I mean if you think about the time when there was one television in home (yes there was a time like that) that television could heat the living room with all those tubes and what not in them.
And now we are talking about powering transportation systems with electricity, cars, trains and so on. It is good that we are looking to other resources for energy. There has been a boom in natural gas with shale mining and there is still coal.While the price of solar and wind energies is coming down fast they are not quite as green as they would immediately appear. Both shale and coal create an immense distraction to the environment around them, with tha waste water and the mountain shearing.
Even greener technologies like wind and solar do not add up the way that nuclear power does. The space currently needed for solar or wind farms is immense compared to what a modern nuclear plant would need to generate much more power. I do not think we should stop pursuing other sustainable energies ,but that we should not take nuclear off the table. As a matter of fact, it should be the center piece for the time being.
The only thing that is really prohibiting the US from having a more significant nuclear energy footprint are the blocks of regulations that are that have created disincentives for investing in it. While I am still not a true believer that utilities should be for profit and unregulated, I do disagree with a lot of regulation the inhibits progress.
It is time we really revisit nuclear energy. We are America and I think that the challenge of our energy needs along with the challenge of our safety needs can be met, using diverse methods and sensible regulations.
Wiz I think you are right - Obama announced in Feb a renewed commitment as well; two plants to be constructed in Georgia. Our older plants need some updating too. Ironic though - for as little as we have done in terms of construction - we still have more nuclear plants than any country.
The wind farms - did you read the article about the town around Dekalb where people are really divided as well as the "shadow" effect on some people? These wind turbines do require way too much space.
Nuclear is the thing for sure - just what to do with the waste has been a difficult solution. Not sure how to safeguard the environment. That would be the only concern I can see, the technology sure is better today and that is a big plus.
One of the benefits of technology is that there would be less waste to deal with, and even if we have to create a burial site for the, that still is the less of all evils involved. I always wondered why we do not shoot them into space or something.
Generally good points. However, the disposal issue still hasn't been reached. Maybe burying them 1000 feet under Harry Reid's state is the answer. However, we just can't keep them either in a pool in Zion or let terrorists get their hands on them.
I share your hope that the safety issues can be resolved after 30 or 40 years. At least Homer Simpson is not a nuclear safety engineer in real life.
The final thing to consider is that while we have more TVs, an LED flat screen one burns far less electricity that the old tube ones, or even the more recent ones with a picture tube.
I know that our devices use a lot less electricity than they used to, but now we are talking cars and trains as well. And we really need to consider realigning our electrical grid and smaller, more powerful nuclear sites would be a great start towards that end.
After all we are America and I do think we can rise to those challenges given the right opportunities to address them.
You are right, we have more devices requiring juice even though the demands are lower - we will actually use more in the long term. I am a firm believer in nuclear and it appears that the administration is moving ahead aggressively. Waste removal will be addressed, no doubt, and am sure resolved at some point. But we can't stop the process our energy grid is aged and that should be the huge concern. It justifies the nuclear expansion.