Interesting article on the requirements of different energy sources

[statman]

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

6 ounces of nuclear fuel is all that is needed to power San Francisco for 5 years. Or a hydro-electric dam with a 250 sq mile lake behind it. Or 375 sq miles of wind farms. Or an unimaginable amount of land dedicated to solar cells (and a fleet of squeegie men cleaning them perpetually)

[PaloAltoCougar]

That's a good article. It's a shame it will have a readership equal to about 0.01 percent of the size of The China Syndrome's viewing audience.

[JohnnyLingo]

I've been on the nuclear train for over a year now.

It's the only alternative energy source that makes sense. Until we discover a perfectly safe, perfectly clean perpetual motion machine, we need to go with our best option.

That some environmental groups fight against bothers me. What better alternative do they want to use? Sometimes I think they'd rather we just go back to the Stone Age.

[Pheidippides]

Nuclear has three major problems:

1. Gigantic initial investments to get one up and running (but the costs after that are low).

2. Difficult regulatory environment (which is really a subset of bad press - think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island).

3. Disposal (essentially a NIMBY problem).

Those are practical problems to be overcome in constructing nuclear power. However, there has been some renewed interest in nuclear that I am hearing about and some players are looking at trying to get some things built. It will be a long process to be sure. But nuclear is fantastic in baseload operation (not so great as a peaking unit, obviously) and is the right answer for now. To say it's a solution is to say we won't continue to innovate, which is something I don't believe.

I am on the nuclear bandwagon and have been ever since the day I saw a marginal cost curve for power production based on the fuel source.

[landpoke]

That's a good article. It's a shame it will have a readership equal to about 0.01 percent of the size of The China Syndrome's viewing audience.

Damn you Jane Fonda. You've done irreparable harm to this country and no amount of Barbarella can undo it.

Despite my burning hatred of all energy sources not containing large chain hydrocarbons I too believe in nu-cu-lur. And despite my revulsion at all things French I also believe we should follow their model which involves a cookie cutter approach to constructing plants. I believe if we have one (or two or whatever) pre-approved plant model(s) that should cut out a lot of the regulatory/permitting delays we see now.

[Pheidippides]

It took a multi-decade commitment for France to achieve energy independence.



But France now exports electricity to neighboring countries, can you imagine the US being able to export surplus electricity to Mexico and Canada?

From the article:

France and Japan are the experts on nuclear, on a corporate level, and the deals I am hearing about involve some of the major French and Japanese players.

[JohnnyLingo]

Damn you Jane Fonda. You've done irreparable harm to this country and no amount of Barbarella can undo it.

Despite my burning hatred of all energy sources not containing large chain hydrocarbons I too believe in nu-cu-lur. And despite my revulsion at all things French I also believe we should follow their model which involves a cookie cutter approach to constructing plants. I believe if we have one (or two or whatever) pre-approved plant model(s) that should cut out a lot of the regulatory/permitting delays we see now.

If Obama got behind nuclear power, I would take back most of the bad things I've said about him. Seriously, I think it's that important. I'd be willing to give him a pass on some of the stuff I disagree with.

[landpoke]

If Obama got behind nuclear power, I would take back most of the bad things I've said about him. Seriously, I think it's that important. I'd be willing to give him a pass on some of the stuff I disagree with.

I can't speak directly to nuclear, but the things I'm seeing in the oil & gas industry press seem to point toward a creeping realism that's taking the administration away from a unicorns and rainbow based energy policy and toward things like nuclear and natural gas. On the ground, we're seeing a sort of mini-boom in uranium in these parts. Long shuttered mines are gearing up to reactivate and new ones (mostly low impact insitu type mines) are being proposed and permitted. That's got to be indicative of something.

[DU Ute]

I can't speak directly to nuclear, but the things I'm seeing in the oil & gas industry press seem to point toward a creeping realism that's taking the administration away from a unicorns and rainbow based energy policy and toward things like nuclear and natural gas. On the ground, we're seeing a sort of mini-boom in uranium in these parts. Long shuttered mines are gearing up to reactivate and new ones (mostly low impact insitu type mines) are being proposed and permitted. That's got to be indicative of something.

This post got me searching for a picture of someone drilling for oil through a unicorn and I came across this Obama pic. I felt in needed to be shared, enjoy!

[SCcoug]

There are quite a few reactor designs on the drawing board that could be mass produced, have higher burn efficiency, and could cost less. It will be interesting to see which if any make it to commercial use.

[landpoke]

This post got me searching for a picture of someone drilling for oil through a unicorn and I came across this Obama pic. I felt in needed to be shared, enjoy!

wow, yeah. Of course this caused me to do my own search for Obama/Unicorn pictures. It's a surprisingly broad field.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/02/naked_obama_unicornarama.php

[il Padrino Ute]

wow, yeah. Of course this caused me to do my own search for Obama/Unicorn pictures. It's a surprisingly broad field.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2...icornarama.php

I really wish you would warn folks about clicking, as I about choked on the Coke I was sipping. That was hilarious.