William Hague: UK Nuclear Power Sector Will Expand To Meet Reduced Carbon Emissions Goals

NEW YORK — Britain intends to build a new generation of nuclear power plants to replace its decades-old reactors, partly as a strategy for meeting its goals to reduce carbon emissions, Foreign Minister William Hague said Monday.

"We will have, from the 2020s onward, an expanding nuclear power sector," Hague told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Hague's main topic was the urgency of an international accord to address climate change – which he said, along with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, is among the key crises facing the world in the 21st century.

Partly as a strategic decision to lower its carbon emissions and reliance on imported energy, "We have decided in Britain to build a new generation of nuclear power stations."

"I really see no alternative to that except excessive dependence on oil and gas, and imported liquefied natural gas," Hague said.

"So after quite a long gap in which we haven't built any nuclear power plants, we are opening the door to doing so again. They have to justify themselves economically," and will mainly be built on the sites of existing reactors, Hague said. He didn't say how many would be built.

Most of Britain's existing nuclear power stations are due to be retired over the next 15 years. Nuclear power generates about a fifth of Britain's energy needs.

Comments

[Kenz300]

10:35 PM on 10/03/2010

How much did it cost to clean up Chernobyl?

Oh - I forgot it has never been cleaned up.

We can store 50 years of waste from the current nuclear plants at Yucca mountain.

Oh -- I forgot we have no facility for storing nuclear waste FOREVER.

Nuclear energy is cheap and clean until you have to pay for getting rid of the waste or
pay for the first accident.

REMEMBER.........drill..baby...drill.... turned into ......spill...baby... spill......

Drilling in the Gulf was safe until ............

[maslin]

12:43 PM on 10/04/2010

Does spreading unnecessary fear get tiring?

[strick9]

07:57 AM on 10/05/2010

The insanity of popular acceptance of the nuclear power option is obvious to anyone capable of rational thought. We have learned nothing from our past experience polluting our world. What of acid rain from unregulated emissions from coal, and the continuing expense uncured to clean up the mess.

[johnsonc20]

06:14 AM on 10/11/2010

It seems that we are not fearful enough when we embark on these large scale projects with the potential to create large scale harm to the planet. We are always very confident in these new technologies. Nuclear power has been a dirty experiment, generating 20% of the world's electricity for 50 years, while creating wastes that must be isolated for many thousands of years. It is another example of the myopia of thinking of short-term profit before long-term consequences. And, don't talk about "recycling" the waste as the solution to its creation. Reprocessing creates greater volumes of unstable radioactive and chemical waste. We are still dealing with these at Hanford on the Columbia River with no stable solution yet proven.

[QuantProgrammer]

02:15 PM on 10/06/2010

Actually, we can get 200 years of energy out of the waste going into Yucca Mountain.

And TMI turned out differently than Chernobyl largely because of design differences between RMBKs and Western LWRs.

[maslin]

03:21 PM on 10/06/2010

Right.

Coefficients of reactivity and hard containment turn out to be important.

Shocker.

[Genders]

05:35 PM on 10/02/2010

"The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts,[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Waste bio mass can backup solar and wind, and provide all the fuels we need, using the existing carbon infrastructure, There is no reason to risk nuclear power proliferation, accidents, terroristic attack nor waste.

[dezakin]

06:28 PM on 10/02/2010

If you burn everything. The logistics of turning 1/6th of all biomass on the planet into fuel is simply silly.

[maslin]

06:42 PM on 10/02/2010

To say nothing of the fact that this is hardly an 'environmentalist' solution.

To save the planet, to save the environment, we are going to burn it.

Seems like something is a bit off there.

[Genders]

06:44 PM on 10/02/2010

We already harvest vast amounts of the land's and oceans output, we already transport it for use, all over the world, then we transport it again to the dump. Nothing silly about it. With solar and wind, we only need the carbon fuels for backup, transport, and chemical feedstock.

[maslin]

11:29 PM on 10/02/2010

'The national infrastructure is the same infrastructure as fossil fuels. It's not the infrastructure that's the problem, is fossil vs grown feed stock. right?'

Ah, I see.

So, really, we're best served by building out more fossil fuels for now, aren't we?

It would be smartest to just continue on our carbon consumption path, really, and some day, perhaps there would be enough wind and solar to make a difference.

No.

I'm presenting a real, workable solution. You're selling sky cake.

[Genders]

04:44 PM on 10/03/2010

liquid and gas carbon Fuels. that;s the infrastructure: the cars, trains, generators, chemical plants, refiners,, the infrastructure. What is the problem? There is no need to "build out" in fact some 50% of more can go away. The Bio mass is for backup to solar and wind and for transport. You can replace nearly all of the fuels used for short commutes with plug in hybrids, charged by solar and wind. But you still need long haul fuels. Generating Hydrogen using nukes is very inconvenience, inefficient and dangerous to store and transport: it requires a completely new infrastructure. Once we start getting over capacity with wind and solar, we can divert that over production to powering the bio mass conversions, probably up to doubling the waste biomass fuel output. We can cut our per person energy use by at least 50% without materially harming our living standards through efficiency. Maybe more.

[Genders]

05:01 PM on 10/03/2010

Natural gas, not fracked gas, is something we should continue to burn where is can be released, since methane it 20 times the green house gas of CO2, but we need to more than compensate for the fossil addition to the carbon in the bio sphere by fixing carbon, bio char looking the best way to do that. Once we have removed the methane sufficiency to stop a methane extinction event, we can still take the methane than is bio produced all over the world. We can also use gases from the waste bio mass fuel conversion in the gas pipe line infrastructure. We used to do that, it is called "town gas". Again we probably will not need to build it out, it is already larger than needed when solar and wind take the bulk of the load. This plan does not immediately require a brand new infrastructure. It replaced the fuel for that infrastructure as rapidly as possible from fossils, to current waste bio mass. This seems realistic, Nuclear power does nothing to deal with the fuels issues.

[Poptech]

10:55 AM on 10/02/2010

Myth: Nuclear Energy is Dangerous (Video) (5min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZTt8O__zk

Going Nuclear - A Green Makes the Case (Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Ecology, Greenpeace Co-Founder)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

"Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."

How long will the world's uranium supplies last? (Scientific American)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

[sycodon]

03:54 PM on 10/20/2010

Perls before swine.

[m2b]

09:37 PM on 09/30/2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

[myth buster]

03:11 AM on 10/01/2010

Stock vs. flow. Peak anything has to do with the rate of extraction, not how much is left.

[Genders]

02:47 PM on 10/01/2010

Sorry, It does seem to be peak, you can tell by the decreasing ore concentration.
jayhanson.us/_Energy/NuclearPower.pdf Here is a very details energy accounting for nuclear power and mining versus ore concentration.
"Although the strong dependence of the energy expenditure of uranium extraction on the ore grade (and type) determines what portion of the world's uranium reserves are usable for net electricity Chap_2_Energy_Production_and_F uel_costs_ rev6.doc
6 August 2005 Page 8 of 24 production, this dependence is still ignored by the World Nuclear Association (formerly Uranium Institute London) [WNA-11 2001] or [UIC-57 2001]. In retrospect it is interesting to note that the ore utilized in South Africa in the seventies was so poor that, had the object been to produce energy for household and industrial consumption, the yield would have been negative." Here's a more normal extraction cost graph:http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-22/networking-resource-production-do-networks-warn-us-failing”.

[m2b]

07:51 PM on 10/03/2010

No Kidding. Are you telling me the rate of extraction is going to stay the same for the next few hundred years? Because it isn't. Stock vs flow otherwise known as supply vs demand. Both come into play when discussing peak anything.

[sycodon]

03:55 PM on 10/20/2010

Wikipedia = Peak Stupidity

[AngryBuddist]

05:14 PM on 09/30/2010

I gotta defer to this guy.....

http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/PATRICK_MOORE.htm

[Genders]

05:32 PM on 09/30/2010

why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)#Criticism

[maslin]

05:56 PM on 09/30/2010

I think Moore says it well:

'Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.'

[Genders]

06:00 PM on 09/30/2010

Moore is now a consultant for big polluting industries. lots people sell out, it's very profitable. Not one opponent of nuclear power here has recommended coal, why the continued straw man arguments? He's wrong. the standard solar wind and waste bio mas green energy can provide all the worlds energy needs and more, forever, truly cleanly with no proliferation, terrorist targets, catastrophic accidents or deadly waste.

[Genders]

08:18 PM on 09/30/2010

What is the total energy of all organic products from the land?

[Steelheadangler]

03:04 PM on 09/30/2010

For those interested, here is a great paper on thorium:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/TEAC1/03_Hargraves_AimHigh.pdf

[Carbon Forteetoo]

03:20 PM on 09/30/2010

Excellent. Exactly what I came here to say.

[Genders]

06:01 PM on 09/30/2010

10 - 20 years away, and the cost estimates are disingenuous at best, it will cost more, as nuclear power always has.

[Genders]

02:22 PM on 09/30/2010

Nuclear power suffers from proliferation, terrorists, accidents and waste. LWR are relatively proliferation resistant, that's why the USA uses them. But LWR are terrible for waste. CANDU reactors are Bomb making kits, India for instance. Breeder reactors can burn up some weapons grade materials, but they suffer from proliferation and accidents. Liquid thorium reactors have been reject by Chu because of cracking, and couldn't be online for decades even if they work out. I bring this up, because of a slippery type of argument being used. Someone points out that reactor use massive amounts of water and kill massive numbers of fish. The response, we could use closed loop air cool reactors, but they cost more, and are less efficient, particularly in hot weather. We point out the uranium will be gone in 20 years if all power came from LWR, and the response is that breeder reactors and liquid thorium reactors have thousands of years of fuel. We point out the historical high cost of nuclear power, and you point to some future contract price. No reactor solves all the critical problems, you can't mix and match, , each one has it's failings. The failing of one are not eliminated by the benefits other designs, they have to be looked at as systems. The first response to any problem pointed out about nuclear power is to simply deny it and call the commenter dumb.
Could we please try more reasonable arguments, not so many marketing and pr techniques? thanks.

[Steelheadangler]

02:56 PM on 09/30/2010

Liquid salt reactors have already been proven as has the thorium fuel cycle. There are currently a number of such reactors under construction along with a number of pebble bed projects using this fuel cycle.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to LWR. Your arguments make little sense to anyone with any actual experience or eduction into nuclear power.

By the way, why do you keep referring to yourself as "we" Copy and paste perhaps?

[Genders]

03:12 PM on 09/30/2010

We opponents of nuclear power, and proponents of green energy, will use good links from anyone. No, the complete liquid thorium reactor system has not been proven anywhere near scale. Decades away. And Chu is not going to fund them. LWR once through is what is being funded. everything else is unproven or conducive to proliferation. Why do you keep missing that?

[Genders]

07:52 PM on 09/30/2010

the radiation is about 1000 times more intense. Liquid thorium reactors are the ideal terrorist target to render an entire city uninhabitable for 300 years: to kill a city. You admitted it more radioactive, please don't try and deny that makes it a better dirty bomb.

[JShep]

01:37 PM on 09/30/2010

In the 60's environmentalists fought and won against further nuclear power plants. But they had no reasonable alternative. What did we get in their place - more coal fired plants with increased pollution and GHG's. Before environmentalists renew their assault against nuclear plants,there should be a reasonable alternative. Since solar and wind power are intermittent, they require a steady back-up that can react quickly, which is most likely gas fired turbines. Therefore, we will end up replacing CO2 free nuclear with GHG producing natural gas. It is not a simple matter of just using "renewables". We need a detailed national plan for future power generation which will most likely include solar, wind, bio, nuclear and natural gas. The remaining issue is to resolve the proportions each type of generation that will provide a steady, reliable and economical national power generation system.

[Genders]

02:25 PM on 09/30/2010

Waste biofules, solar and wind have improved 1000's of times in the last few decades. They are now the cheaper than the utility for million of people, and getting cheaper fast. Again the common response it so forget to include waste bio fuels and claim green energy can't provide baseload. Then there is the if not for nuclear power, must be for fossils. The fact is that green energy can replace fossil and nukes 24/7. Yes, green energy is not perfect, what is. But the green energy problem are tiny compared to fossil and nuke problems. Nuclear power is carbon positive, waste bio char is the only significant carbon negative system.

[Steelheadangler]

03:10 PM on 09/30/2010

When you talk about biofuels, what specially are your referring to? As to wind and solar, what solutions do you have for storage?

[Genders]

03:17 PM on 09/30/2010

Waste Bio fuels, particularly Bio char provides all the baseload backup and vehicles fuels we need. It's carbon negative, and can use the same existing carbon infrastructure. That is why solar and wind require no specialized storage, the grid will do. Rooftop pv solar and offshore wind are the what I propose in particular. They use no water, no land, they are the most economical choice for the future.

[Steelheadangler]

03:49 PM on 09/30/2010

Bio Char? Doubtful. The problem is supplying peak demand which can not be accomplished with either solar or wind at this time. This is a simple statement of fact.

I will agree that solar and wind will eventually supply a large amount of our power, however there must be a bridge to that technology. The only realistic alternative to fossils that can be fully exploited in the next decade is nuclear. Generation 4 technology will provide that power.

I know that you wish for your plan to work, however there are several fundamental physical laws that prevent such mechanisms from operating in real world conditions.

[ScottontheSpot]

10:17 AM on 09/30/2010

I have little problem with nuclear energy provided it is of the Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor (LSTR) kind. These, and a few other similar types, of reactors, leave far less waste, which can itself be recycled and burned anew, are more efficient, and use much more readily available Thorium instead of rare Uranium. The problem? Our nuclear industry is too steeped in making the old kind of reactor and doesn't want to change. China, France and Germany have all experimented with LSTRs and may build those in the future. Don't know about the U.K. though and this article doesn't say.

[alvdh1]

02:22 PM on 09/30/2010

This is how the British do it and you deep down, hope for more contiuned contamination of the surrounding Sellafield countryside and the Irish Sea. Promises, Promises, Promises and Leaks, Leaks, Leaks The giant nuclear sieve around the globe and coming to a neighborhood near you.

http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/September04/04sell.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/mar/05/money.usnews
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3832957.html

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/leak-forces-sellafield-to-close

This is how the French do it.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./?page=1

http://www.climatesceptics.org/category/country/france/la-hague

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1662339/pdf/bmj00168-0034.pdf

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/00_ong_international-concerns-about-reprocessing.pdf

America doing its fair share to spread contamination.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/12257

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/utah/uranium_history.php

http://fwix.com/grandjunction/share/1b264c59e6/group_sues_over_cotter_uranium_mill_cleanup

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-reactor-safety

http://www.environmentcolorado.org/in-the-news/preservation/preservation-in-the-news/mopping-up-uraniums-mess#idIjL7CWWAFhp1wyAzE12kyA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Valley_Reprocessing_Plant
This is America's failed attempt at commercial nuclear waste reprocessing and the taxpayer bailout. Promises, Promises, Promises followed by leaks and contamination and no medical tracking studies.

[Steelheadangler]

03:09 PM on 09/30/2010

You have provided links to a number of op-eds. Good for you. I'm personally more interested in facts and evidence as opposed to opinions.

I will agree that the worlds first two generations of nuclear power plants have not lived up to expectations, however when compared with fossil fuels using almost any matrix; safety, reliability, potential... nuclear stands up quite well.

The failures of the past should guide us into the future not stifle us. The fact is that military policy has been the single largest reason why new generation 4 reactors are not being built today.

[Genders]

07:59 PM on 09/30/2010

great stuff. Incredible how the pro nukes folks continue to promise they will do better than they have done for 50 years. fool me once, shame on you....

[m2b]

11:32 PM on 09/29/2010

Nuclear Power = Low carbon my a**. Mining uranium is an extremely carbon intensive process which has huge negative environmental impacts. You should be ashamed of yourself for telling such harmfull and damaging lies. Only a psychopath could truely have as little empathy for the human race and our future as you. And Michael Mann.

[Steelheadangler]

11:41 PM on 09/29/2010

Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy is relatively carbon free. New generation 4 reactors including pebble bed and molten salt reactors will allow close to 100% burn up. Using current supplies of both uranium, weapons grade materials and thorium that has already been mined the U.S has enough to supply the power demands of the nation for hundreds of years.
I worked as a naval nuclear reactor operator for a number of years and have conducted extensive research into emerging nuclear technologies. What are your credentials?

[Genders]

07:45 PM on 09/30/2010

Stop it! nobody is comparing it to fossil fuels.

[myth buster]

12:23 AM on 09/30/2010

Even the once-through LWR cycle, the veritable SUV of nuclear power plants in terms of fuel economy, still extracts twenty thousand times as much energy from the same amount of mass as coal does. Neglecting this factor in your calculations is beyond careless; it's dishonest.

[Genders]

08:00 PM on 09/30/2010

stop it. nobody is comparing it to coal. compare it to solar wind and waste bio char.

[m2b]

10:22 PM on 09/29/2010

Uranium is a NON-RENEWABLE resource, people!

[Michael Mann]

10:26 PM on 09/29/2010

Uranium for 200-300 years, then we use thorium for the next thousand years, hopefully we will find something else, maybe fusion by then.

[Genders]

10:32 PM on 09/29/2010

thus uranium is non renewable, if we increase nuclear power, it will be gone in decades. waste bio mass, wins and solar will never run out. Mann you promised to keep the argument factual.

[m2b]

11:33 PM on 09/29/2010

When you're long gone and obviously won't have to deal with a dead planet.

[myth buster]

12:24 AM on 09/30/2010

Wrong- new uranium comes from space all the time, and there are nigh endless supplies on Earth that we can extract if the price is right- the ocean is full of the stuff.

[Genders]

06:26 PM on 09/30/2010

If the price is right? Nuclear power is already more expensive than solar wind waste bio fuels and coal, the available ore is already declining in concentration. at some point the energy to mine and extract it will exceed the energy you can get from it. What percentage is that?

[Genders]

08:19 PM on 09/29/2010

I don''t understand how folks can be proponents of Nuclear power given the proliferation, terrorists, accidents and wastes. Wast bio mas fuels clean up the dumps, and provide all the baseload power we need, without even building new generators, they can even use coal plants and still be carbon neutral. Nuclear power is fascinating. the potential for a million times the energy density is so attractive, but the same million times factor, makes it a million times more dangerous. Nuclear power seems so safe and effective, till it fails in extraordinarily catastrophic ways. Dare I say it: Nuclear power fails a million times worse than any other power source. Nuclear power does nothing for the fossil fuel problems, waste Bio mass fuels solve that problem elegantly. Are humans addicted to throwing things "away"? Waste bio mass, completely closes the recycle loop. Everything we harvest from the land, eventually gets thrown away, hopefully after many reuses and recycles. Isn't the total bio product harvest many times the human energy use? When we build a house, we harvest the wood, build the house, then remodel, and eventually tear the house down. Last I heard, that's most of our waste. Don't we have an obligation to clean up our junk?

[myth buster]

12:27 AM on 09/30/2010

Entropy doesn't work that way. You can recycle matter, but you can never recover 100% of the energy- not even close. That's why biomass can't provide all our energy- the Second Law of Thermodynamics says too much has to be wasted.

[alvdh1]

03:09 PM on 09/30/2010

Biomass to electricty using pyrolysis gasification technology with heat exchangers has a thermal energy efficiency potential of 80 percent. Distributed generation at our nations factories and small urban power plants utilizing tree trimmings, animal waste, human waste, crop waste, municipal waste and food processing waste. Combined heat power/cogenration already provides 9 percent of our power supply and wehaven't even scratched the surface yet. Isn't that 11 percent below nuclear's contribution. Biochar is the byproduct of pyrolysis gasification and is the ultimate form of carbon sequestration.

Largescale nuclear power stations boiling water 34 percent efficient minus grid transmission losses = 25 percent

[GRLCowan]

12:25 PM on 09/30/2010

"I don''t understand how folks can be proponents of Nuclear power given the proliferation, terrorists, accidents and wastes..."

I asked you to try to understand, just hypothetically, how proliferation might not be a genuine nuclear power issue at all, and you replied that you didn't live in a hypothetical world.

If the other three objections are all genuine, the proliferation one is unnecessary. Is your ignorance that fragile, and that valuable to you?

('How fire can be domesticated': http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/ )

[Genders]

06:29 PM on 09/30/2010

what are you talking about, I haven't a clue, could someone else explain what cowen is trying to say? Just hypothetically, why don't you assume that nuclear power is too dangerous, expensive, and dirty?

[Kyle Grousis-Henderson]

06:29 PM on 09/29/2010

THORIUM! TELL THE WORLD! IT EATS NUCLEAR WASTE AND THERE IS NO WEAPONS POTENTIAL!

[Joffan]

07:14 PM on 09/29/2010

Thanks for your enthusiasm,

Nuclear waste is not that bad (small, solid, controlled) and there is no proliferation potential in current plants. I support the development of moltern-salt thorium breeders, but not because the current plants are bad. We should build more nuclear power today with light-water and CANDU as well as develop future technologies.

[Genders]

08:22 PM on 09/29/2010

Aren't CANDU reactors perfect for weapons material making because of the online refueling capability?

[m2b]

10:20 PM on 09/29/2010

Nuclear waste is not that bad? Says who? And what do you propose we do when all the uranium has been dug up out of the ground? And all the fresh water used for the plants?

[Michael Mann]

04:42 PM on 09/29/2010

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The operating plants are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building many new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
Yes, all energy is dangerous by definition, shouldn't we use what has been the safest and most reliable over the last 40 years? That is our nuclear plants, higher capacity factors (>90%) safer than financial institutions (OSHA statistics) and most are environmental nature preserves.
The "green establishment" is funny; Solar is "clean & green" no matter what carcinogens, toxins, mining practices and disposal methods, Nuclear is "dirty & non-green" no matter how well managed, it's safety record, environmental record or any other objective facts. I am not a paid spokesperson, my views and opinions are my own. I do not hide the unique hazards of the nuclear industry, I just want them evaluated in an objective way, not trying to scare people with nonsense. When people are given the facts they can make an intelligent decision. Smog and coal ash or clean air and nuclear power, it seems like an easy choice.

[Genders]

08:35 PM on 09/29/2010

You seem to truly believe in nuclear power. It's difficult to argue with you without angering you, so beloved is nuclear power to you. Nuclear power suffers from: proliferation, terrorist, accidents and waste. I know that you feel these are all acceptable risks, I respectful, totally disagree. I think you stretch credulity when you equate the toxicity of nuclear waste with cadmium or lead. The same factor of a million times more energy density for nuclear power, is it's many Achilles heals. You would like us to relax and feel comfortable with a technology that can kill millions, and render entire cities uninhabitable for hundred of years. You are asking too much. Your are trying to ignore the incredible danger of nuclear power, after all, you have worked in a plant your whole life, with no problems and no accidents. I doubt we will ever agree, such is life.

[Michael Mann]

09:12 PM on 09/29/2010

I think you ignore the true risk and overestimate the nuclear risk, I am very familiar with the nuclear risk, I know the steps we take to mitigate that risk. The risk from solar and wind are much more stealthy. The problem is not to relax with the other risks, to look at them objectivley, only history will tell. The problem is that I feel we are losing our chance to build a better society by not using the best technology available, which I truly believe is nuclear power. I have only been working with nuclear power for thirty years or 3/5 of my life so far, I hope to live a few more years.

[guinganbresil]

09:51 PM on 09/29/2010

Risk is hard for a lot of people to understand. It consists two things: a consequence and a probability of occurance.

For nuclear power many overestimate both the consequence and probability - and fail to reasonably compare risks. Which is more dangerous? Flying in an airplane? Or driving to the airport?

[aligatorhardt]

04:23 PM on 09/29/2010

I don't like to see more reactors being built. They will probably find as others have that costs, security and health concerns will show this is not the best choice for the future electicity needs. It is odd to talk about concern over proliferation of nuclear weapons, while encouraging the technology that is a gateway to the threats.

[Joffan]

07:15 PM on 09/29/2010

Nuclear power does not lead to nuclear weapons.

[Genders]

07:57 PM on 09/29/2010

uh, we had that conversation on this thread, just a little while ago, all of the nuclear power proponents agreed that CANDU and the RGKM or something, the Chernobyl type reactor, are great for producing weapons material, since they have easy online fuel replacement.

[Genders]

01:53 PM on 09/30/2010

"CANDU reactors are the only commercially available nuclear reactors that produce both plutonium and tritium. India's first nuclear explosion in 1974 used plutonium from a heavy water reactor that was a gift from the Canadian government­." http://www.ccnr.org/india_press.html

[maslin]

06:04 PM on 09/30/2010

I would love to see more, and I'd love it if they were in my community. I am more afraid of forgetting my sunblock in summer than of a passively safe nuclear plant being built near me.