Think globally, (don't) act locally?

Conflicting views on nuclear power


as I've happily described here recently, countries are planning and even starting to build many new nuclear power stations. Even oil-rich countries are seeing the signs of the end of the Carbon Era, and investing while they've got the wherewithal to invest. The Deep Horizon Gulf disaster will only hasten that eventuality. So here's an article that nicely summarizes the current global reawakening of interest and investment in nuclear power:

The nuclear option is back on the table

"The world's energy needs are skyrocketing. Global electricity demand will increase 2.5 times by 2050, according to the NEA, which has predicted that between 2030 and 2050 the world will need between 23 and 54 new nuclear reactors per year to replace decommissioned plants and to increase power production.

Overall, the NEA, a division of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, has forecast the number of reactors worldwide growing to between 600 and 1,400 by 2050, from 430 today. That represents necessary investment of between $680 billion and $3.9 trillion, at roughly $4 billion per reactor.

A recent political trigger in Europe, the NEA's Echavarri explained, was the disruption of gas supplies to several European countries during the bitterly cold 2008-09 winter, following a pricing dispute between Ukraine and Russia. The European Union depends on Russia for roughly a quarter of its gas supplies, and the disruption was a wakeup call to EU governments."

and THIS IS WHY I HAVE NO LOVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DOLT SKEPTICS:

"Another key factor behind the Western world's change of heart on nuclear energy is the technology's eco-friendly credentials. Unlike the combustion of fossil fuels, nuclear fission does not produce carbon dioxide.

"We have set some very ambitious targets for reduction in greenhouse gas. Here in the U.S. we're talking about an 80% reduction by 2050, and when you look at an analysis of what it's going to take to get there, your options come down pretty quickly [to] renewables and nuclear energy," said Adrian Heymer, head of the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute.

In other words, climate change has accomplished in the space of a few years what two decades of lobbying couldn't: It put an end to the industry's nuclear winter.

"One of the most important factors driving the nuclear renaissance is undoubtedly climate change," said Christian Taillebois of Foratom, a lobbying group that seeks to promote the use of nuclear energy in Europe."

Finally, regarding some of the anti-nuke arguments you'll see in the article below:

"It's true that the construction costs are very large, but the maintenance and fuel expenses are vastly lower than for other sources of energy," he said, adding that new plants can be operated for 60 years, compared with 30 or 40 for the earlier generations."

In a study published last month on the projected costs of generating electricity, the OECD found that nuclear is now a more economically competitive source of energy than coal, gas or wind."



At the same time, here's another article that notes that some states in the United States of Energy (U.S.E.) are procrastinating on the renewable and atomic future. Well, here's my state by state analysis after reading the article:

US State Lawmakers Do Not Share Love For Nuclear Industry

Arizona: lost to a strong solar lobby. Have you ever seen how sunny it is in Arizona? This is not a surprise, and if any state should have a strong solar power program, it's AZ.

Illinois: There's still coal downstate, and coal shipping is also strong. The antiquated anti-nukers still cite environmental concerns. May their candles burn bright.

Wisconsin: The article says: "Wisconsin's existing state law requires that any proposed nuclear power facility be proven economical for ratepayers and that federally licensed waste repository be available to safely store spent nuclear fuel. In practice, affordable power and long-term waste disposal are two requirements that nuclear power is incapable of meeting." One, better plants mean economic freedom; two, as plants get built in other states, a real plan for nuclear waste disposal will get put in place.

Iowa: Let them conduct the feasibility studies. They'll find out it's feasible and necessary. If 2010 hits a new temperature record, momentum will build. Corn ethanol doesn't work (but if they started growing high-yield switchgrass...)

Vermont: They needed to shut down that cranky, creaky, leaky dinosaur.

West Virginia: Coal is still king in that state, but with such wonderful PR for the industry as underground killer explosions, and mountaintop desecration that is also hideously bad for the environment, look for consciousness of the benefits of the nuclear alternative to filter down there, too.

Kentucky: Another moratorium on nuclear station building goes down to defeat in a coal-rich state. Shocking I tell you, shocking.

New nuclear stations will get built by power companies in states with growing populations and established nuclear success, like the Carolinas and Florida (and Florida needs power for desalination). With demonstrated successes, the states will turn.