US to Inject $30 Million for Plug-in Hybrids

The Prius gets all its energy from gasoline. We have to import petroleum and pay big bucks to foreign countries and we get into wars over the control of the supply and find ourselves propping up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia where women (but not men!) are still stoned to death for adultery and which is still the number-1 financier of terrorist groups.

Cars capable of getting all or some of their energy from the electric grid are good because electricity is generated from domestic sources of energy and can (if we ever get up the political will) be made from renewable sources.

Nuclear has the potential to provide all the energy we need in the short run. The waste products of nuclear power have the potential to sterilize the Earth. If you really do not care what happens to the biosphere in 100 years, and if you are not worried about an accidental or terrorist-induced melt-down, then nuclear power is very attractive. But if you care at all about the environment, nuclear is a disaster.

 

Unfortunately, public perceptions are sometimes not entirely in tune with the facts.

The largely coal-based electricity generating industry is the largest US polluter. It is responsible for over 60% of sulfur dioxide emissions (think acid rain) and 40% of all carbon emissions. It significantly impacts water and land resources, and not in a good way.

As to large wind and sun farms, we are just beginning to discover the significant environmental and wild-life impact these can have on the locales where they are placed.

Interesting, how people who clamor for more and speedier research into solar and wind power, forget that science is not standing still in understanding and dealing with the problems of nuclear waste.

There is a lot of research being done, ranging from employing a mixed oxide burning, which reuses waste and significantly reduces the potency of the end waste product, to innovative methods of storage. There is really no reason to doubt that with enough money for research, progressively better ways of dealing with nuclear waste will be found. Just like there is no reason to doubt that with enough research, progressively more efficient solar panels will come to market.

I hope that all such venues are pursued, so that we'll have some good options of clean energy, be it solar or nuclear, to chose from.

In the meantime, if you really care about the environment, give a penny to groups who promote family planning - around the world.

 

Pretty generalized statement, "if you care at all about the environment, nuclear is a disaster..." which is not backed up by the facts. Plus there are newer generation reactors which produce a very small amount of waste. (granted they are not fully developed yet).

A well thought out article about nuclear power. It is not totally pro nuclear, but it is far from "if you care at all about the environment, nuclear is a disaster..."

The Nuclear Option: Scientific American

The article "next generation nuclear power" which is referenced in the article describes nuclear reactors that generate very little waste. Unfortunately, you have to pay for that article.

 

For all those who read various Scientific American or MIT Review articles or whatever showing waste progress overlook a very serious problem. It's that these are almost exclusively rich country technologies. Go to the Bellona.com site to find out details of how Russia handles nuclear waste. Now what does North Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or India, or China do?

It is not about a silver bullet technology that can solve nuclear waste problems. It's about ALL countries having economic incentive to dump the waste rather than process it....with only a few with strong enough democracies to overcome that economic drive. That's a real nightmare of a problem.

 

And the list will only get longer in the future - exploding world population means exploding demands for energy, and oil and gas, and even coal, are called "non-renewable" resources for a reason.

As the cost of such energy sources raises in response to demand, more countries will do everything possible to obtain the relatively cheap and inexhaustible energy promised by nuclear power. And it will get harder and harder for the "rich" countries to prevent the development of home-grown "poor" country nuclear technology. IMO, a very good reason to speed up research, so that waste can be made safer and disposal cheaper.

Also, I am not sure I understand the argument. By the same logic, what should we do about solar: A couple of decently sized solar panels cost more than many in the "poor" countries make in a year....

Similarly, most "clean" environment technology is largely "rich" country exclusive. I'd venture a guess, that Pakistan is much more careful about leaks in its nuclear facilities, than about coal plants spewing sulfur in the air. I'd also guess that the total damage done to the world environment by say, coal burning, is much, much greater, than the damage done by all nuclear plant leaks.

P.S. It's hardly fair to equate entities like Scientific American or MIT, which are largely objective and generally present both sides of an issue, with something like Bellona.com, which is openly partisan and not really in the business of presenting competing arguments.

 

The point is that other than the US and Europe, most other countries just flat out dump their nuclear waste (usually the closest ocean). A significant number of nuclear researchers in N. Korea have died from radiation poisoning. This makes their priorities rather clear. What do you think they do with spent fuel rods after extracting the Plutonium? Are they going to pay a cent for any waste processing technology when they don't even use shielding around the reactors???

Concentrated solar and wind power is very viable and is much less expensive than NRC grade nuclear plants with DOE grade waste storage (which does not exist yet). So we have no good reason to build nuclear plants. I just gave the reason we do not want poorer countries to make nuclear plants.

Read a couple of issues of Home Power. You will find that the poorest countries are big users of solar panels since it allows local colleges, hospitals, and schools to operate where power is not available. It is rather surprising to see the spreading use of solar in Africa.

 

Coal and other fossil fuels will not sterilize the Earth, but they will change the climate sufficiently that the repercussions will bring about an economic collapse and social chaos.

Nuclear has the potential to exterminate the human race by rendering the environment too radioactive from the waste products. Nothing can be contained, by any human technological means, for the length of time that would be required. But nobody in charge much cares when happens in 100 years, much less a thousand. Cockroaches will survive. Nuclear is very good policy if you're a cockroach. As FL points out, all the latest waste-handling technology means little when only a handful of countries can afford it, or even care.

So it's solar and wind and other renewable resources, or bye-bye to civilization as we know it.

 

And how does the statement that North Korean nuclear researchers have died from exposure, relate to researching and building safe nuclear facilities in the US?

Are you trying to say that if the US doesn't research and build "clean" reactors, then North Korea would direct its efforts to wind and solar power?

Apocalyptic visions straight out '50s horror movies do little to advance a rational argument.

Your underlying assumption is that since no perfect technological solution currently exists to eliminate nuclear waste, the whole field should be abandoned.

Yet, the first electric cars were built half a century before nuclear science was born.

Well over a century later, we still don't have a viable electric vehicle. We don't really have a good way of dealing with the wastes from the production of batteries, nor do we have a good way do discard spent batteries (yes, many do end up in the nearest ocean.) You are hopefully aware, that dry-cell batteries contain heavy metals, and that currently in the US, about 90% of mercury and half the cadmium leaching in hazardous waste dumps, come from discarded batteries. Bring in electric cars, and you have an even bigger problem. Oh, and do you really think that places like China or North Korea are as careful about their heavy metals disposal, as is the West?

I assume that we are all in agreement that we should not abandon electric car research, just because it hasn't delivered yet, or because batteries leach heavy metals, or because battery production in poor countries destroys the health of whole communities.

Perhaps the same courtesy of keeping an open mind, should be extended to other technologies, including nuclear.

Cheers.

 

Simply because the US/Europe is the leader in creating new technologies. Korea, Russia, India are not going to invest diddly into solar/wind power. The US/Europe can and will, making it economically more viable for the third world. Again, the US does not need nuclear. The third world cannot properly handle it. Every country can have and handle solar, wind, ocean power.

Look at a satellite photo of North and South Korea at night. It will be painfully clear how little energy North Korea has. They also have no money to buy nuclear or fossil fuel. They do have wind and sun. Once the N. Korean political system collapses, then N. Korea may be very interested in international donations of sustainable power plants.

The EV1 saga makes it clear that EVs were viable, just not supported. When EV1 owners offer to buy the vehicles and GM insists on crushing them, then what we have is NOT a technology problem. It is a myth that EVs are lacking technology to be successful.

As for the battery problem, it is solving itself. NiCd is a obsolete technology and only an idiot would throw away a spent EV battery still worth many hundreds of dollars. We are in agreement that throwing toxic stuff in the ground is unacceptable.

I have been in the nuclear industry. Physics has not changed, nor biology...and the waste problem is getting worse, not better. I very much was a nuclear enthusiast when starting out. However, the "open mind" works both ways. As my knowledge level increased, it became clear that the nuclear waste issue actually has never been figured out. However, with so many plants build and running, it is clear that the government position is that it "will be worked out".
Now add that education into renewable power really amazes me since it is so far along. Nine full scale solar plants operating up to 15 years should make it clear that this works.

 

Simply because the US/Europe is the leader in creating new technologies. Korea, Russia, India are not going to invest diddly into solar/wind power. The US/Europe can and will, making it economically more viable for the third world. Again, the US does not need nuclear. The third world cannot properly handle it. Every country can have and handle solar, wind, ocean power.

Look at a satellite photo of North and South Korea at night. It will be painfully clear how little energy North Korea has. They also have no money to buy nuclear or fossil fuel. They do have wind and sun. Once the N. Korean political system collapses, then N. Korea may be very interested in international donations of sustainable power plants.

The EV1 saga makes it clear that EVs were viable, just not supported. When EV1 owners offer to buy the vehicles and GM insists on crushing them, then what we have is NOT a technology problem. It is a myth that EVs are lacking technology to be successful.

As for the battery problem, it is solving itself. NiCd is a obsolete technology and only an idiot would throw away a spent EV battery still worth many hundreds of dollars. We are in agreement that throwing toxic stuff in the ground is unacceptable.

I have been in the nuclear industry. Physics has not changed, nor biology...and the waste problem is getting worse, not better. I very much was a nuclear enthusiast when starting out. However, the "open mind" works both ways. As my knowledge level increased, it became clear that the nuclear waste issue actually has never been figured out. However, with so many plants build and running, it is clear that the government position is that it "will be worked out".
Now add that education into renewable power really amazes me since it is so far along. Nine full scale solar plants operating up to 15 years should make it clear that this works.

 

This is about as logical, as me saying you shouldn't have wine with dinner, because George Bush had a problem with alcohol.

Whether you like it or not, the Third World will continue to try to develop nuclear power. And as the years pass, more will succeed. Closing your eyes and ears doesn't change this. We better spend the money on research to make it safer. Both for us, and for the poor countries.

About time.... The very first electric car was built in the 1830s... And the first solar cell was built in the early 1880s.

For comparison, we didn't even know that there was such thing as an electron until 1897, and isotopes were not discovered until almost 20 years later. I'd say we've come a long way since then, so have some faith in the science.

Physics and biology haven't changed, but our knowledge on both subject has. Perhaps if you didn't hold Scientific American or MIT Review in such disdain, you may have read about it

But really, all these arguments are irrelevant, unless we all get very serious about curbing population growth. Energy conservation is not unlike draining a river with a pail, when compared with the geometric progression of population growth, and its corresponding resources and energy demands. Human Population: A Historical Sociological Prospective

Really, if you think about it, it's not nuclear waste which is "sterilizing" the planet, it's the exploding numbers of humans and their living requirements. We shouldn't make more of us, at least for a while.

Anyway, at least we all agree, that electric cars are a good thing. Even if they've been long, long time coming.

 

Why would the third world develop nuclear power if it was vastly more expensive than sustainable resources? That is my point. If no country sells the fuel (since bombs would be the only purpose) then the third world nuclear efforts end for the right reasons.

EXACTLY - The science I am talking about is getting energy from renewable resources. It is here now. The faith in it has paid off. So it is time to reap the benefits....for the entire world.
The science you are talking about is only available to the rich countries with money. I have faith that enough money spent will result in advances.....that will not be used by the third world countries. China most certainly ignores all scrubber technology on their coal plants. They could use it easily, but don't want to bother with the cost.

Those magazines are great for ignoring the economics of the situation. No quibbles with the low level details, but with the final application. (Same with fuel cell cars,..... every magazine's darlings, and an economic dead end.)

Partially agree, energy sources are not irrelevant arguments, just secondary to a serious overpopulation crisis.

 

I doubt any manufacturer is working on an electric car that runs on Eveready Reds. Nuclear is stealing from future generations. Will there be a fund to pay for the future waste management issues of nuclear?

If the first world builds more nuclear power plants rather than solar and wind power investment this will make nuclear power cheaper for third world countries rather than they can enjoy those economies of scale in solar and wind energy. Solar and wind can be more spread out over the country reducing transmission losses and the capacity of the distribution infrastructure without loss. The tough part is companies would rather invest in one large power plant that many smaller installations because it gives them exclusive control. Smaller entities could build their own solar and wind installations but it isn't likely a local council or community group would build a nuclear power plant therefore it is in the interest of large utilities to retard the development of renewables.

I don't mind Australia selling uranium off shore, we have lots, but I want to continue living without nuclear energy in Australia. There is one small nuclear facility in Australia which exists to make radioactive medical products.

 

I am glad we agree, even if the "green" movement is strangely silent on overpopulation

I am also not saying that we should put all of our hopes on nuclear, but only that it looks like a reasonable and greener alternative to stuff like low grade coal burning. I am all for exploring everything else, including solar, wind, and hey, don't forget gravity.... Anyway, take a look at this comparison between alternative energy sources: Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts of land, warns researcher | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Hm, in a way, this can be said for much of human history: We are still cleaning up after the environmental damage caused by the Industrial Revolution. The ancients did much to deforest parts of Europe and Asia. And in Australia, your generation doesn't get to see any large predators, because upon arrival, the Aborigines did their best to slash and burn their habitat, and then hunted them to extinction.

But generally, each generation leaves accumulated knowledge too, so that future generations can build on such knowledge, to solve the problems they inherited, and create new ones for those who come next.... It's called progress.

BTW, Australia, at about the size of the contiguous US, but with a population just barely over 20 million, can certainly be a bit more lax about energy. In fact, AFAIK, Australia is one of the very few industrialized net energy exporters.

In short, Australia doesn't even have to sweat it too much to provide energy for the population equivalent of Los Angeles and San Diego. It can happily burn coal to power it relatively minute needs, and it doesn't even have to be so stringent on emission standards - it has a whole continent to absorb the pollution. And in pretty Adelaide, you could practically power the homes of it's barely 1 million people, by tapping the energy from the fermentation process going on in the wine country over the hills

See, it all boils down to population size

 

Science is not a religion, that one is supposed to have faith in. Science is a tool for understanding our world. It is a great mistake to make the blanket assumption that whatever the problem, science will find an answer to it. That is an abrogation of responsibility. We are producing contaminants that we have no way to deal with, and leaving them to devastate future generations, with the glib assertion that those future generations will find a solution through science. Instead, dealing with those contaminants will bankrupt them. Except they'll already be bankrupted by our present fiscal irresponsibility.

Overpopulation is of course what drives our geometrically increasing demand for energy and other resources. It's the Malthusian population curve: A population increases beyond the long-term carrying capacity of its environment, and then collapses for lack of resources. Whatever the carrying capacity, be it one million or one trillion, the population soon exceeds it.

So we are agreed that population is the underlying cause of our problems. But since very few people volunteer to leave, and everyone wants to have at least two and often three or four or ten babies, and making babies is easy to do and a lot of fun and impossible for any government other than a draconian dictatorship to limit, and the largest religious institution in the world tells its members that any attempt to control population is a mortal sin, well, I don't see any solution... but then I've always been a pessimist.

 

Black2006, yep your pretty close. Australia is about the size of the mainland USA and has a population of about 20 million.
90% of the land is barron and of very little value however we are blessed with an abundance of minerals. The question I though we were concerned about is a global one?

I don't understand how we can use nuclear power thinking it isn't harmful to the environment but we have a waste product we don't want anywhere near us and we know it will be dangerous for many thousands of years.

Yes the planet has been devistated in many ways before by people too ignorant to know better but we should be beyond that now. Should we just pretend to be ignorant?

Yes, you are right, none of us has a zero carbon footprint but we are mostly trying to reduce our impact while maintaining life style and fitting into our societies.

The impact on the land of wind farms and solar collectors isn't like a monocrop where all the land is used to do only 1 thing, a crop can grow under wind turbines and stock can graze among solar collectors. Solar collectors can also go on building roofs.

A reasonable steady investment in renewable energy harvesting will do more to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than you could imagine.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for low grade coal over nuclear. As far as I could tell from the link, it doesn't like renewable energy products because it takes up space. Windfarms that I have seen don't constitute a major industrial transformation, with the land still being usable. Plus, it many areas of the country there is a lot of open space to put up turbines. I could see more of the point perhaps with solar panels, but if the government was serious about using solar as a main source of energy, we could utilize the roofs of the nation rather than taking up huge chunks of land for solar farms. It all boils down to having a variety of methods to fit each country/area's resources and situation. Geothermal makes no sense for the US, so does that mean Greenland shouldn't use it? Some areas may be more conducive to hydroelectric, others to solar, and others to wind.

I think the thing you are missing though is that what messes previous generations left behind was when they didn't know any better. They did it out of ignorance. The reasons why new problems come up with each generation is not intentional imo, but comes back to ignorance. I think it is very irresponsible to put the burden of future generations to clean up our messes when we know we are making messes. Mature individuals and mature societies don't knowingly make messes that are going to be a burden for those in the future.

I'm not against nuclear per se, as I am keeping an open mind for how technology can improve it. Until there is a way for the waste products to be efficiently and consistently taken care of, I think it should not be the primary method being researched (and used).

 

I wonder if this is the same program that was just re-announced to make it look like the Bush Admin is doing something? Either way, $30 Million over a few years is Pathetic - especially when the Clinton Admin poured about $1.5 Billion into the Supercar program (that Bush Killed) and the several hundred billion a year of gas that we currently consume (i.e., desparately need).

 

30 million is actually an insult
Froley

 

The only reason to develop a nuclear program is to make bombs. There is no reason for third world countries to go nuclear when they can skip over that and go straight to better sources of energy: solar, wind, geothermal. There's biodiesel from cellulose. There's methane from....uh....what is plentiful in all countries. Developed nations should be developing the technology and then it should be shared with less developed countries. This is our "noblesse oblige"......our obligation.