Sen. Alexander Pushes For $700B For Nuclear Reactors

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called Wednesday for doubling the number of nuclear reactors nationwide, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

"It is an aggressive goal, but with presidential leadership it could happen," the third-ranking Senate Republican told an economic and technology conference at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge.

"I am convinced it should happen because conservation and nuclear power are the only real alternatives we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to clean the air, deal with climate change and keep good jobs from going overseas."

Alexander said he would deliver that message next week speaking on the floor of the Senate, where he said all 40 Republicans and many Democrats support nuclear energy. He said he hopes President Barack Obama's administration would embrace his call under efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama's administration is considering a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gases and to require larger quantities of carbon-free energy production.

The country's 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity, while most of its energy comes from carbon-producing coal. The last reactor to come online was the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor in Spring City, Tenn., in 1996.

Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander's proposal "reckless."

"Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution," Smith said. "New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for."

Smith urged conservation and efficiency improvements instead, but Alexander said they would not be enough to blunt growing energy demand.

Alexander said he also backs renewable energy sources, notably solar power and biomass fuels, yet called those still too expensive and inefficient.

"Today there is a huge energy gap between the renewable electricity we would like to have and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have," he said.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is spending $2.5 billion to complete a second reactor in Spring City by 2013. Meanwhile, there are 17 proposals for 26 new reactors pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Knoxville-based TVA has two reactors among the proposed projects and is considering completing two others in north Alabama.

Alexander said he would increase federal loan guarantees now being offered for the first four reactors to as many as 12 to "jump start" the nuclear revival.

Comments

[HeidiFromLI]

Nuclear Power plant might be expensive to build, but they produce clean and cheap power. As for the waste, there are creative ways to use the excess heat "waste" that are green (think co-gen and heating planting fields which improve grow yield). As for the nuclear waste, there are solutions for now that will allow technology to improve to a state where a permanent solution can be found.

Tough decisions need to be made and sometimes you have to take the best solution even when it is not a perfect solution. If you read www.ProudlyMadeInAmerica.com you will understand how important cheap, and green, energy is to our country and to our manufacturing base.

[research]

Why do you defend Nuke power. they are not CLEAN, and you know it. they are not cheap power, and you should know it. "creative ways", means 25 years of research, no solution has been found for nuclear waste, and politically the "once through" cycle is the only permissible cycle. The fresh nuclear fuel needed for the existing types of reactors start the uranium wars in 85 years, 13 years if the whole worlds energy came from nukes.

why would we risk Proliferation, the actual real threat of extinction, just for electricity.

Why do you repeat the nuclear industry talking points?

See my profile for complete links and proof of what I say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

Rooftop solar is safe, faster, cheaper.

There is also wind and biochar.

We don't need to nukes, it not a tough question at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

[research]

we have had this argument before on Huff, nukes lose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/three-mile-islands-30th-a_n_180212.html?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kessler/remembering-the-three-mil_b_179955.html?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/who-will-pay-for-americas_b_191455.html?

[research]

the same money would buy 100 nuclear reactors worth of rooftop solar.

No risk of global thermonuclear war.

Free fuel forever.

Solar is Mana from heaven.

[notAMoron]

except solar panels have a 25 year lifespan and they only produce power when the sun shines, and where the sun shines pretty frequently.

There is no effective electrical storage solution available, it is kind of like the carbon capture that makes coal clean...

Nukes are base load power that can be effectively integrated into any geographical location.

[research]

I included all that smart guy.

that's why the average is 1/4 of the peak.

No batteries needed for a LONG TIME.

Just [pump the solar energy on the grid.

Since air conditioning the peak load, solar reduced peak load and grid load.

Nukes are shut down for weeks every few years for refueling.

Since nukes can cause the destruction of the world, why would you use them?

[RonGallion]

No risk of nuclear war with power grade rods. There is a risk of cheap electricity with almost no emissions. There is a risk of putting ten's of thousands of people to work. It's very safe and clean.
I like solar too we need all forms of power.

[research]

Proliferation.

If there is no danger, why do we care about IRAN's Civil power enrichment to 3%?

Because Nuke power tech is the same as Nuke Bomb Tech.

[wadenelson1]

Where have all the radionucleotides gone
Half life twenty million years
Where has all the fallout gone
It's all still right here

Where has all the spent fuel gone
Not to Yucca Mountain
Where has all the spent fuel gone
It's all still right here

Where is all of Chernobyl's fuel
Spread over half the world
Where is all of Chernobyls fuel
It's all still right here

Where are all the plutonium pits
Tens of thousands ready to kill
Where are all the plutonium pits
They're all still right here

When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

[andresfusion]

100 nuclear reactors will be a good start.... but really we need to start building more nuclear power plants right now. We need baseload power free from CO2 emissions, it is ridiculous that we are so far behind from rest of the world when it comes to nuclear power. Nuclear power plays a key role in getting rid of our coal dependency. Plus Nuclear power is CHEAP the capital cost up front is very expensive BUT operational cost are extremely inexpensive. The waste can and it's been recycle the Japanese are opening a second reprocessing plant.

A great new book if you are really interested in understanding how to solve climate change:
"Sustainable Energy-without the hot air." by Cambridge physicist David MacKay
A quick intro to the book in youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRQB2YXUxvY&feature=channel_page

"Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to be pro-nuclear. I’m just pro-arithmetic." quote from David MacKay

[research]

"Please don"t get me wrong: I"m not trying to be pro-nuclear. I"m just pro-arithmetic." quote from David MacKay

How dishonest of you.

Please go read his comments,

He might as well be a paid nuclear industry PR rep.

[ClarcKing]

Senator Alexander's proposal should be taken seriously. France is reliant on nuclear energy for 80% of it's energy requirements. Modern population centers will need nuclear power. A modern mass transit system will need cheap reliable nuclear power. Modern industry must have cheap energy. Solar, wind and water sourced energy systems are worthy of development, however these energy sources are inadequate for the modern population. We must not be afraid. The non-nuclear or anti nuclear faction need some time to investigate the successful nuclear systems in use through-out the world. Clean energy from scientific design should fulfill the requirements of the environmentalist faction. Science derived creation is America's destiny. It is necessary now more than ever in the present economic crisis. There is no reason to keep the United States back from fulfilling it's requirements to it's population with the future benefit of sharing it with the rest of the world.

[research]

easy nuke fuel gone in 13 years if the world goes nuke.

France dumps it waste all over the world.

Proliferation.

Why when rooftop solar and biochar will supply all the energy we need.

See my profile for proof.

[Kungfublood]

It is an outright lie to claim that nuclear power is Green and an even bigger lie that it is emission free.
If all the people that claim it is emission free would get together and stand in this room and look into the pool while I go behind this thick wall and raise the rods out of the water..no more idiot lying profiteers. As for recycling i hope you don't mean dumping them at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington State where the navy sends their old reactors the ones that are well on the way to leaching into the Columbia River. Where do you get your water or oranges how about avocados?

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

yet another one promoting the brilliant idea of building new nuclear plants when we have no solution for the waste.

[elmerfude]

There are solutions to the waste but it requires a little bit of discipline and attention span to understand them.

[research]

yes, a millions year attention span.

Not to mention the proliferation risk.

[FunkyP]

The facts are pretty simple. Nuclear waste is radioactive (effectively) forever. We have no rational way to use or transport this waste. Some re-processing is possible, but conversion to armor-piercing missiles is not a good use for depleted uranium. Let's bury it in your neighborhood...maybe behind the elementary school.

[Overtone]

Forget Nuclear Power - Future Cars Can Become Power Plants When Parked!

Revolutionary breakthroughs will make possible a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE™.

A SPICE can be used to power a hybrid. It needs no fuel and will end the need to plug-in, as the engine can run when parked and wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.

The SPICE is powered by hydrinos. One barrel of hydrinos can equal several hundred barrels of oil.

To learn more about SPICE and hydrinos see: www.chavaenergy.com Look under the heading HOW?

Until now, car ownership has been an expense. A few plug-in hybrids, equipped with a two way plug, can feed power to the local utility while parked. The owner of such a car could earn up to $4,000 every year.

Payments to car owner’s driving a hybrid with a SPICE are likely to be substantially more.

When a substantial number of vehicles selling power to the grid fill a parking garage, it will have become a multi-megawatt power plant.

The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed.

The parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective, alternative to the many costly challenges of constructing new nuclear or coal power plants.

[research]

distraction. not ready for prime time.

[alvdh1]

Research is an oxymorron. I guess this is why Pacific Gas & Electric is already building demonstration facilities for car to grid power in California. Of course, if you had done your research on it before piping off, you would have know it and reserved your mindless commentary for the grudge report.

[wadenelson1]

Four years at a poison ivy league school and not ONE of my physics, engineering, or chemistry professors even MENTIONED hydrinos.

Maybe I can get a refund.

[research]

700 B for 2$ per installed peak KW rooftop solar, would generate about 100 GW average, with free fuel forever. see my profile for details.

[Manx]

And all the nuclear waste should be dumped in Tennessee.

[Cyberoptic]

In his living room.

[alvdh1]

It should probably be dumped in his pool where the fuel rods can be kept cool. We don't want an accident in Tennesee do to the fact that not all of the residents voted for this lunatic.

[guntotinganglion]

Part 2 of 2

Another factor in the equation is how corporations that champion use of these hideously dangerous, and hideously expensive mutant babies of the Cold War, have to get liability waivers to build the plants. That is to say, if one of their reactors goes critical and blow, the public will have no financial redress of grievances. Why do they need this? Because they won't get insurance if they don't have these financial protections. The reason for this? Because of the potential massive loss of life and property in the case of a meltdown and explosion (say like, oh, I don't know...CHERNOBYL...or THREE MILE ISLAND!). I know, can't happen here...until it does. But if it can't happen here, why do they need financial protection from "frivolous" lawsuits over losses that could be in the hundreds of thousands dead, and thousands of square miles of land poisoned for essentially, eternity.

And cheap...oh ya. Sure they're cheap. This claptrap is just moronic...and as usual, future generations will be the ones to pay the price of either cleaning this mess up, or dying when systems for storage (or which there are none officially) of these grotesquely toxic waste products break down.

This whole topic is retarded. This was all put to bed a long time ago...at least we thought it was.

[guntotinganglion]

Part 1 of 2

That anyone can continue to not only defend the use of nuclear energy, but also to push hard for it, is beyond me. If this technology is "clean", how bout one of these proponents going into the reactor core when there's a problem that needs to be dealt with? Ooops, can't do that. If there's a problem, instead of a person going in, they have to design a custom robot at some astronomical price, and send it in. And then, after it's done, have it bury itself, because it has now become nuclear waste too!

I do find it humorous that people who have howled about global climate change, now use it as an excuse to revive the dead nuclear industry.

[Ozarks]

Lamar is living in dreamland to believe a nuclear plant can be build for $7 billion ( $700 billion/100 = $7 billion). Each plant will probably cost more like $30 billion to build and $30 billion to decommission. So it will be more like $ 3 trillion over the first 10 years of construction and then another $3 trillion over the following 27 years (whole life depreciation) of the 100 plants. such a deal

[Ozarks]

Yea and another $700 Billion to decommission them. Plus finding some place, after dumping $9 billion down a rat hole at Yucca, to store the fuel rod waste for 100000 + years . Such a deal!!

[KMAz]

In the 20 to 40 years from commissioning to decommissioning, the cost of decommissioning may far exceed the cost to build the plants in the first place, not even counting the cost of storing the spent fuel rods for eternity.

[guntotinganglion]

Oh, I would think the price tag for decommissioning is far greater than that. You've got a one to one ratio there. Been awhile, but when I read about this some years ago, the cost of decommissioning was estimated to be somewhere between three and ten times the cost of original construction! Actually, no one knows as of yet, at least as far as I know, cause no US plants have been officially decommissioned, aka cleaned up and made safe. That is a milestone yet to be passed as far as I know.

Decentralized power system development is the future. We need a so called "moon program" to develop much cheaper and efficient solar cells, that everyone will be able to use. Wind power is another, tide power is another, temperature gradient technologies for oceanic use is another...and who knows, maybe there are entirely new ideas forming in young people's heads right now...concepts that won't poison the earth for quite literally anywhere from tens of thousands of years, to billions of years, depending upon the materials and isotopes in play.

[research]

millions of aces for a million years or so.

That's Quadrillions of dollars in lost land use.

[guntotinganglion]

I just had to add, another approach might be for all of us to consider ways to get off the electrical teat, so to speak. In these arguments, there is an assumption that our consumption of energy can never go down...when in fact it can. We have become far too dependent on electrical systems in our daily life as it is. One example I can think of was years ago, when I was a kid, being at a grocery store when the power went out. Each cashier in turn, brought out a hand crank, and continued doing business. Today, the power goes out, end of business. We have no backup anymore for the electrical grid. It goes down, so does our civilization. EVERYTHING is running on electricity! I'm not saying give it all up, but get some view and realize that ALL things don't have to be done by plugging something in.

Really, what we need is a change of attitude toward life in general. Can you do without a microwave oven? Can you do without a television? Can you read a book rather than load a DVD? Alternates are a good thing...choice is a good thing. We need choices, and electricity is no longer a choice, it is mandatory, especially with rhetoric like Alexander's.