-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Brandon in the Basement
January 8, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Time for Some Ju-Jitsu
December 10, 2012 | 51 comments
The Energy Spectator
America’s Last Nuclear Hope
Small reactors may save us yet.
Griz Deal had been Entrepreneur in Residence at the Los Alamos Laboratory for only six months when he saw something he liked.
“I had been thinking in terms of taking some technology for sterilizing food with radiation,” he says, sitting in his corporate offices in New Mexico. “There seemed to be a niche market in that. Then I went into John Peterson’s office and saw a reactor he had designed that was about the size of two hot tubs. He said he thought they might be able to use it in the tar sand fields of Canada. I knew immediately it could have wider application. It was so obvious it seemed amazing no one had ever thought of it before.”
Six weeks later, Hyperion Power Systems was incorporated and Deal was out marketing the 125-megawatt reactor, big enough to power a town of about 20,000 people. At first customers hesitated because there seemed no chance that Hyperion would ever get the design through the glacially slow licensing procedures at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Washington bureaucracy that controls all things nuclear in the United States. But in August Hyperion signed a memorandum of understanding to build a prototype of the Hyperion at the Savannah River Site, a weapons-producing installation in South Carolina that lies outside the NRC’s jurisdiction. Then, in November, Hyperion entered an agreement with several European countries to start exploring the possibility of powering ocean-going oil tankers and transport carriers with nuclear engines. Contrary to all expectations, it appears that American companies may be able to participate in the nuclear renaissance that is sweeping the rest of the globe after all.
That America is going to miss the revival of nuclear power that is reaching into the remotest corners of the globe is now almost a foregone conclusion. While the rest of the world is discovering what will undoubtedly be the principal source of power by the end of the 21st century, Americans are preoccupied with how many picocuries of tritium are leaking out of Vermont Yankee or whether we’ll ever get around to deciding what to do with Yucca Mountain. There are 60 new reactors under construction around the world in countries as diverse as Brazil, Argentina, Lithuania, India, and Sri Lanka. Twenty are being built in China alone. Kenya, Indonesia, Morocco, Bangladesh — all have entered into agreements with one provider nation or another to begin plans on their own nuclear program.
Thirty years ago, the big three American companies — General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox — dominated the international market, building reactors in Europe and Asia. Today the field is completely dominated by foreign giants. Areva, 80 percent owned by the French government, is building in China, India, and Finland. Westinghouse, bought by Toshiba in 2008, has projects all around the globe. General Electric, still in the field but running in last place, recently partnered with Hitachi in the hope of reviving its fortunes. Russia’s Rosatom has deals with Vietnam, India, Egypt, Brazil, and Venezuela. The biggest shock came when the United Arab Emirates put out bids to build four reactors in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Areva and Westinghouse figured to be the contenders but both were upended by Korea, which only started building its own reactors five years ago. The Koreans won a $20 billion contract in late 2009, the largest international construction job in history. Yet all this will change once again when China enters the international market with its own design (reverse-engineered from Westinghouse) somewhere around 2013. France, which prides itself on being 80 percent nuclear, is already fearful that it will be closed out of the market by the rising Asian competition.
So how can America possibly fit into the highly competitive race to provide what is surely going to be the dominant energy source of the 21st century? Believe it or not, we still have a chance — with small reactors.
LAST MARCH, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he praised small modular reactors (SMRs) as “America’s New Nuclear Option,” Secretary of Energy Steven Chu acknowledged that America is in danger of falling behind other countries. “Our choice is clear,” he wrote. “Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow.” In fact, America is the only major nuclear country that does not even have the capacity to forge the three-story steel vessel heads at the heart of large reactors and will have to import them as well. But Chu saw an opportunity in the new small designs. “If we can develop this technology in the U.S. and build these reactors with American workers, we will have a key competitive edge.”
Bite-sized reactors offer a whole spectrum of advantages. First, in terms of safety, they are much easier to handle. Temperatures do not reach the same level so there is minimal chance of overheating. Huge containment structures do not have to be built — and in fact some are being designed with a built-in containment. Modular reactors can actually be buried, which more or less eliminates the possibility that even the worst-case accident could have any serious widespread consequences.
Modular units can be built at the factory and then shipped to the site by rail for final assembly — a huge cost saving. Moreover, they can be added in small increments. One of the great disadvantages of contemporary 1,700-megawatt reactors is that they represent a colossal investment — upwards of $10 billion — and may take the better part of a decade to complete. For a country like the United Arab Emirates building its first reactor, this makes sense. But American utilities are facing an uncertain future and are incurring almost unacceptable risks by undertaking such long-term projects. Reactors in the 50-to-150-megawatt range will allow utilities to add power as needed at acceptable costs.
The construction of modular reactors presents the possibility that smaller nuclear “batteries” can be distributed across the electric grid, tucked into factories and urban locations, so that transmission costs can be minimized and efficient co-generation uses designed. One of the main criticisms of power plants in general is that they convert only about one-third of the energy input into useful electricity. The process of boiling steam to turn an electric turbine means that two-thirds of the energy escapes as waste heat. If the steam can be captured and routed to heating or industrial purposes, however, energy use can become almost twice as efficient. This is difficult when the power plant is located on an isolated compound miles from the nearest city. But if people can overcome their fears and tolerate small reactors in their neighborhood, the possibilities become enormous. “Everybody talks about electricity but we’re an enormous consumer of industrial steam,” says Doug May, vice president for energy at Dow Chemical. “We see small reactors as a game changer.”
Finally, there is the possibility that nuclear “batteries” can bring power to remote locations that are difficult or impossible to serve by other means. Because of the extraordinary fuel density of uranium — approximately 2,000 times the output per pound as coal — small modular reactors can essentially be stocked with fuel rods and then run without interruption for five years. This would be invaluable in the tar sands of Saskatchewan, where huge amounts of natural gas are now being consumed in order to distill the heavy hydrocarbons into usable fractions. Several remote villages in Alaska are being courted by SMR manufacturers. A reactor buried in the basement of a single building could power a town of 20,000 without ever being noticed.
A HOST OF COMPANIES have already jumped into the field with innovative ideas. NuStart, a company founded by Paul Lorenzini, a former Los Alamos scientist, has a 150-MW reactor designed to fit into utility sites. It runs for five years and then the manufacturer hauls it away for refueling. Lorenzini places the costs at $700 million — chicken feed for electric utilities.
Babcock & Wilcox, which has not built a reactor since the ill-fated Three Mile Island, has introduced mPower, a 175-MW reactor that is cooled by air and can be located anywhere. The company hopes to have a completed design by 2011 and is making plans to build an experimental model with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Radix, a small Long Island start-up, has a design for a reactor of only 5 megawatts that is intended to run forward base operations for the U.S. Army. “We looked at the requirements and realized that nothing else works nearly as well,” says Dr. Paul Farrell, a nuclear scientist who founded the company. “Anything involving liquid fuels involves a whole vulnerable supply chain and renewables like solar and wind just don’t provide enough power. But our reactor can fit on a truck and support an encampment of 100 people.”
In fact, the whole idea of using small reactors has been accepted by the military for decades. Nuclear submarines are powered by 50-MW reactors that sit a few feet away from crew members and run for five years without refueling. Admiral Hyman Rickover operated the Nuclear Navy on impeccable standards and there has never been an accident or a life lost due to radiation exposure. Since the 1990s, nuclear reactors now power aircraft carriers as well. The reactors aboard Nimitz class carriers are slightly bigger — 194 megawatts — and supply electricity for what amounts to a small floating city of 2,000 people. Again, there has never been an accident.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/21/americas-last-nuclear-hope
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.21.11 @ 6:26AM
What you should take away from this article is that the NRC is a relic and should be closed for repairs.
David W| 3.21.11 @ 8:44AM
not so much a relic. Instead, it appears to be populated by 60's hippies or hippy wannabees (or eco-libtards) who are against all things nuclear and are doing all they can to stop nuclear power from replacing nasty/dirty fossil fuel. Maybe if (or when) the Republicans take over the senate and the presidency they can kick out the current occupants of that department and put in people who are able to balance safety with the need to actually do something.
ew-3| 3.21.11 @ 5:18PM
I find this particularly worrisome -
Immediately prior to assuming the post of Commissioner, Dr. Jaczko served as appropriations director for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and also served as the Senator's science policy advisor. He began his Washington, D.C., career as a congressional science fellow in the office of U.S. Rep. Edward Markey. In addition, he has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown University teaching science and policy.
simon templar| 3.21.11 @ 10:55AM
I think that this is a GREAT example of the free market, innovation, and capitalism at its best. We have the capability of solving many issues and problems; do we have the WILL? The last thing we we should ever do is leave this up to the hippies, eco-fascist, the progressives, and the government. It's time to ignore and shut these people up once and for all.
joedoc| 3.21.11 @ 11:54AM
Agreed. The NRC should just go away. Build a stronger containment shield. Wait a minute, it has to be earthquake proof. What if there is a tornado. Or a tsunami. Or a meteor strike. Or aliens attack. Lawsuit after lawsuit. This country is driving me nuts. Life isn't guaranteed, although liberals think it should be. Small nuclear reactors are a no brainer. I just wish the no brainers in Washington could see that.
JohnK144| 3.21.11 @ 1:02PM
You are ABSOLUTELY right, joe. The problem is, this country is STARVED for real leadership. I enjoyed reading this article, but I already knew all of this. Why don't our "leaders" attempt to educate American citizens about any of this? It's mind-boggling.
Sam Levi| 3.21.11 @ 1:34PM
NRC brought to you by the Department of Energy, the letters, N and O, and the number 0
Quartermaster| 3.21.11 @ 8:23PM
Aliens are attacking? Quick, call all the Lawyers together and beg the Aliens to take them.
Spoonman| 3.22.11 @ 1:19AM
BOS, almost all government agencies are relics and should be closed.
Merlin| 3.21.11 @ 6:56AM
The NRC, EPA etc. are brought to you by our best and our brightest who still have not quite figured out that you cannot spend money you do not have year after year after . . . . .
John Navratil| 3.21.11 @ 7:17AM
We won't have to worry about putting Grandma on the ice floe. The government will do it for us.
JimH| 3.21.11 @ 8:13AM
That is of course, if you can find an ice floe, thanks to global warming. ;->
Patrick| 3.21.11 @ 10:23PM
Should be easy enough. Just call the Goracle for a visit and snow and ice should follow in next to no time.
In the meantime, "hide the decline".
JP| 3.21.11 @ 7:32AM
We shall see. Nuclear power, at least in the US, relies on subsidies to remain competitive. Perhaps, it is all of the regulatory and legal costs (usually incurred well before one is built) that drives up the cost of nuclear powe. But, I think there are resonable doubts about nuclear power. Just because China and France do it better is no reason to jump on the band wagon.
Probably in the long run the US will have to make a choice. But again, demographics may end driving nuclear power to an early grave. An aging society uses less power. And the US is aging. Beginning late this decade, the US will begin its demographic decline. We will consume and produce less, not because we are more ignorant or virtureous, but because we will be older as a nation. Fossils fuels in that sense, will be more cost effective. And the US has fossil fuels aplenty.
If need be, we could supply our own energy. It's all a matter of will and of costs.
Nuclear power could still be viable if its less expensive than fossil fuels. But, seriously most of the hype concerning greenhouse gases and global warming are just that - hype.
Brian Mc| 3.21.11 @ 7:45AM
Good point, JP. I was going along, just fine until mention of carbon emissions.
Do we dare consider the day when every home, instead of a furnace, would have a nuclear power plant? Hey, computers once filled large rooms that are now held in the palm of your hand.
The portable, floating units in Russia are intriguing. Might be that in my lifetime the Cordoba Nuclear Power Station up the river from where I live will become a dinosaur...first things first: put a stake through the heart of the NRC.
Buster| 3.21.11 @ 7:56AM
I have to disagree with you on the NRC, Brian. I have always said about drug testing (required of nuclear workers), it bothers me greatly that we need to do it, but we do. So it is with the NRC, they do get the job done. Yes, much could be streamlined, but they do provide a necessary oversight. At least in nuclear we are getting the benefit from the expensive regulation. I would say some other industries could take some lessons, gulf oil spill anyone?
No disrespect intended. I do agree strongly that we need to work to improve the efficiency, but the job needs to be done.
Tom| 3.21.11 @ 9:46AM
Buster,
What benefits have we seen? There has not been a new nuclear plant license in over 30 years. What is the point of a Nuclear Regulatory Agency that does not allow new nuclear plants? Surely, there are a few safe designs that can be built. And if all plants are inherently dangerous why allow the existing plants to operate at all?
No, there are few benefits from the NRC. They are busy regulating out of existence their reason for being: nuke plants.
Buster| 3.21.11 @ 10:05AM
Benefits, how about no further accidents since 3 mile Island (1979), and continually better performing plants by any measure, absolutely including safety. I don't believe it is the NRC holding up the licensing, that dubious honor belongs to the environmental folks.
The do provide an effective and thorough oversight function, which contributes to the continually improving performance at our nuclear plants.
joedoc| 3.21.11 @ 5:51PM
The last time the NRC issued a license for a nuclear power station was 1976. 35 years. I'd say they need streamlining.
Quartermaster| 3.21.11 @ 8:27PM
NRC needs qualified people in charge, not the political it has now. We can build safe nuke plants as we have from the beginning. It's the NRC and ecoidjits that have made nuke power so expensive.
captnjoe| 3.21.11 @ 9:26AM
An aging demographic does not mean a declining population, nor does it insure the lower use of power. Look at power use per capita, it is going up.
Regarding cost effectiveness, we have no data on the SMRs. My guess is as good as yours, and I see SMR reactors being far cheaper than fossil fuel power. No need to deliver fuel to a coal, oil, or gas plant is a huge savings in itself.
SMRs are the future.There is no need for water cooling, the small units are far more damage resistant, and there is no concentration of fuel in any one spot. Look at the Japan disaster, SMR's would have made that situation non-existent.
Buster| 3.21.11 @ 7:50AM
I spent my career in nuclear power, from the mid 70's through 2006 when I retired. I saw nuclear get continually better and better. Safer, more well maintained, more cost competitive. All of the nuclear people I have met share a common trait: they all take nuclear issues very seriously.
They're good. When something breaks at the plant, they find out what caused it to fail, and take appropriate steps to prevent it from happening again.
They may whine and moan at regulatory requirements, but they sure support the principle, safe operation of the plant.
These small reactors make a whole lot of sense to me. It saddens me to conclude that the author is correct, it is unlikely we will be able to benefit much from a very likely world wide boom.
oldfart| 3.21.11 @ 7:50AM
Distributed power generation, just like distributed computing, makes a whole lot of sense. Not the least of which is less risk to wide spread power shutdown to natural or human caused events.
axbucxdu| 3.22.11 @ 1:24PM
It's just another example of the tension between system design reliability versus fault tolerance. I leave it to the reader to ponder which he or she prefers when boarding an airplane...
JimH| 3.21.11 @ 8:18AM
Mr. Tucker, your thoughts on maybe with these small plants if we should return to Edison’s vision of locally produced DC and reduce our dependency on the grid.
John Navratil| 3.21.11 @ 2:51PM
JimH,
I'm afraid AC is here to stay. About the only thing we have than could run on DC is the lightbulb we've just outlawed.
Seriously, we have so many things requiring so many different voltages that the first thing we would have to do with DC power is convert it to AC to transform it.
TennesseeVolunteer| 3.21.11 @ 8:27AM
IN my business of manufacturing steel components for construction, when we were at our peak production, we considered buying a new machine that made five times as much as our existing machine at five times the cost.
A very wise business strategist educated me that adding one similar machine like mine at the time was the more prudent move since a business downturn with a note that big, could take me down. With multiple, similar machines, I coulsd sell one off, have a smaller workforce etc.
Obviously, with the recession that won't go away, that advice has at least given me a chance to survive when people who owned the big machines have mostly gone under.
As soon as I read this article, this smaller reactors make the same kind of sense. the ability to place one in an area that is isolated, smaller investments-quicker turnarounds, possible mobility of units etc.
The second part I find extremely sad is that our technology in nuclear has been wasted and shrunken by the Environmentalists which is a further reason our economy suffers in the past and in the future.
joedoc| 3.21.11 @ 6:14PM
I agree that it is sad that the environmentalists have so much power in this country. Until we find a leader who is willing to tell them to pound sand, nothing will change. PC is this country is killing us.
Fairbanks99| 3.21.11 @ 10:43AM
Regarding submarine reactors. They initially had a five to eight year life before refueling. That has increased to more than twenty. My last boat before retiring from the Navy was the USS Florida. She was launched in November of 1981, and entered Norfolk Naval Shipyard in early 2003 for refueling. The ship steamed hundreds of thousands of miles during this time.
Small reactors are exactly what we need. I lived in Fairbanks, AK for five years, and while I was there Toshiba was negotiating with a small remote village (Fort Yukon) to put in a 10mw plant. Currently diesel oil is barged in during the summer to fuel generators.
Universities, military bases, and small towns could be safely powered by these baby nukes a whole lot more effectively than the so-called renewables.
Hillel| 3.21.11 @ 10:43AM
When all is said and done,NOTHING HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND. Nevertheless it has been invoked eversince Japan's nuclear disaster.
Atomic energy is dead. The Greenies constitute a new religion whose believers are impervious to logic and reason. Natural gas turbines and more oil drilling is the way to go. Possibly the Coal States will overcome the political opposition. If agrarians and Arthur Daniels Midlands can push worthless ethanol we should be able to push coal and gas.
Mark G| 3.21.11 @ 12:27PM
"The Greenies constitute a new religion whose believers are impervious to logic and reason."
Don't you know that the Earth is flat? No need to send ships out to look for a new world. They will fall off the edge and die!! Its to dangerous!!
And about those horseless carraiges and aero planes. STOP playing around with them!! Someone might get hurt.
DeesBull| 3.21.11 @ 11:39AM
Years ago when they started building behemoth sized nuclear plants I wondered why they had to build them so large. The military used submarine reactor plants for power at their polar bases many years before and I thought that many smaller reactors would be a better idea for America. Hopefully it will be the wave of the future.
What would be cool to see in all homes would be something like the "Mr Fusion" power plants that powered Doc Brown's DeLorean on the "Back to the Future" movie. But knowing how government works I'm sure they would fight tooth and nail to keep the control and power they now have over our lives by keeping us 'in the dark' as long as possible. God forbid that we wouldn't have to depend on them anymore.
chris haynes| 3.21.11 @ 12:00PM
"All of the nuclear people I have met share a common trait: they all take nuclear issues very seriously." If that's true, then they lack the competency needed.
Fukushima was designed for an 18 foot Tsunami. They had over 30 feet. Three buildings blown up. Three cores partially melted. No power for 10 days counting.
Dagny Taggert| 3.21.11 @ 1:37PM
Nuclear safety competancy or marine disaster prediction compentancy? That's the part of this PR nightmare that sets my SMR-loving heart back. The media have lumped these together, and thus given the no-nukes ostriches all sorts of support.
Bill in Houston| 3.21.11 @ 5:42PM
Chris,
Fukashima was designed for a seven meter wave (23 feet). They received an 8 meter wave (26 feet). You do realize that a seven meter wave is nearly as rare as hen's teeth, right? The 8 meter wave is more of a once a century type. You simply can NOT design for every possible event and get something built. The law of dimishing returns adds up and you wind up with nothing.
Fukushima supplied power to northern Honshu for 40 years. It was due to go offline next year.
JohnK144| 3.21.11 @ 1:12PM
None of this is actually news to me. I've been talking about the use of modular reactors forever. But it's still good to see articles like this popping up.
The only thought I would add to the idea of utilizing mini-reactors, is that we should consider using them APART from the "national power grid." The problem with the centralized grid system is that it opens us up to attacks, whether physical or cyber, that could affect millions upon millions of people instantaneously. By systematically dismantling the need for the grid system, which we can do, we would go a long way towards increasing our national security.
JimP| 3.21.11 @ 1:56PM
I wonder if the Greens will demand we go to war to stop all the nuclear power proliferation in all those other countries? The threat level to Mother Gaia will be through the roof with all those reactors in all those untrustworthy other countries where there are no Greens to protect Gaia and the people from plutonius exploiters.
Bill in Houston| 3.21.11 @ 5:44PM
The Greenies won't be happy until we're all freezing in the dark, and dying off. Why? Because a large plurality of them see humanity as a blight on Mother Gaia. Of course they except themselves from said blight due to their self-believed enlightenment.
Quartermaster| 3.21.11 @ 8:31PM
I would agree the Greenies are a blight on the earth.
chris haynes| 3.21.11 @ 3:01PM
Nuclear safety competancy or marine disaster prediction compentancy?
Same thing.
The top gurus license a nuclear power plant on the ocean. Other guru's design it for "the most severe credible occurance", an 18 foot tsunami.
But they get a 30 foot tsunami.
The result: 3 damaged cores, 3 blown up buildings and 10 days without power. That should be enough incompetence to go around. Of course, I'm assuming no malfeasance.
Bill in Houston| 3.21.11 @ 5:45PM
Son, there's just no pleasing you. I'm sorry you can't look at this through logic (i.e., critical thinking).
Quartermaster| 3.21.11 @ 8:46PM
Bill, critical thinking is not taught in school anymore. I'm preparing some teaching materials and Mortimer Adler's book "How To Read A Book" was cited in some of teh materials I've been reading in my research. It applies so well to this situation I'll quote one passage from Chapter 1.
Speaking of punditry and how they package intellectual positions and how it makes it easy "to make up your own mind, "But the packaging is often done so effectively that the viewer, listener, or reader does not make up his own mind at all. Instead, he inserts a packaged opinion into his mind, somewhat like inserting a cassette into a cassette player. he then pushed a button and "plays back" the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. He has performed acceptably without having had to think." Mortimer J. Adler in "How To Read A Book" Page 4, 1970 edition.
While that is done with conservative people as well, most conservatives would be ashamed to be caught in such a situation. Liberals, and other chicken little types, do it all the bloody time. It's like listening to an endless quote machine with the same talking points ad nauseum.
There are concerns about nuke power, and a good many of them are caused by the very people that say they want to avoid problems. The inability to reprocess nuke waste and reduce the storage requirements to something reasonable is just one example of the chicken little leftist hacks babbling. Jimmy Carter, who supposedly knew better, was a massive source of problems during his period of showing his utter incompetence in most ever matter.
Like so many government agencies, the left has taken over the NTC and has reduced it to just another source of hackery and incompetence. It's mission is impeding nuclear development. It is succeeding in its actual mission only if you consider stoping Nuclear power from being developed instead of being developed safely.
Parkyakarkus| 3.21.11 @ 3:02PM
No, nuclear is not dead. This is just an opportunity for the U.S to consider thorium reactors. For those who have not heard of this alternative, peruse youtube and google. You will be amazed!
Jack| 3.21.11 @ 4:38PM
We have been downsizing everything since I was a kid. I kept waiting for the day that they would make a nuclear reactor small enough to power a neighborhood or even small enough to power remote ranches. I am almost in the grave and nothing approaching common sense seems to have infected the bureacrats or eco-idiots. In my capacity as a Land Surveyor I could see a large subdivision of homes with its own water and sewer facilities and now its own power source. This makes so much sense that it doesn't have a chance. The Electric Co-ops are going to fight it because it will make them insecure. Once again money and unions will grind things to a halt.
Bill in Houston| 3.21.11 @ 5:52PM
Mr. Tucker, you mentioned that the US Navy has been operating aircraft carriers on nuclear power since the 1990s. I'm afraid you're off by three decades.
CVN-65, USS Enterprise was commissioned in 1961. It was ordered in 1957 and christened in 1960.
Since then we have commissioned ten more, and there are two under construction (CVN-78 Ford, and CVN-79).
John Q. Thorium| 3.21.11 @ 6:32PM
Modular construction the size of military plants, good ideas, and yet for installation in civilian territory I want them much, much safer. Let's *learn* from this Japanese experience. New Westinghouse designs brag about a failsafe that blasts open water feeds. Well, not optimal but OK. But then only has water for 72 hours. That should be 72 days, minimum. As it cools, that is not so much more.
Better yet, the thorium designs are all talk so far, but have a dozen reasons to prefer over current uranium models - including MUCH lower cost and MUCH greater inherent safety. Let's *do* it!!!
John| 3.21.11 @ 8:40PM
Nuclear power is heavily subsidised and is not generally commercially viable. The waste problem has not been resolved . Where will they put all this waste. Global warming may yet save nuclear.
Quartermaster| 3.21.11 @ 8:52PM
The entire amount of nuke waste from France's nuke program would fit in small residential garage. They process their waste and separate fissile materials from non-fissile. Chicken Little leftists have prevented proper disposal of nuke waste. IT's not hard, and saves a lot of space.
Of course, combine the leftist dipsticks with the NIMBY types, and you have a recipe for disaster. The ecoidjits will not allow anyone to solve a problem of any importance. See the quote above from Mortimer Adler's, "How To Read A Book." It's quite relevant to the large number of problems the left will not allow anyone to solve.
tom B| 3.22.11 @ 4:20PM
To bad that cold fusion didn't pan out, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this. Fusion will be the real answer but is a long way off. The greens think like this: Can't use Nuke people will get killed....more people get killed in auto accidents...ban cars. Can't use wind turbines cause birds will get hurt. No to hamster running in cages, you will get shut down by PETA. Can't use burn wood cause we would be cutting down trees and the garden clubs wouldn't
stand for that.We would have to cover the whole state of Texas with solar cells..can't do that. So what is left?????
axbucxdu| 3.22.11 @ 8:59PM
So what is left?
The future looks something like the ultimate socialist dream: The Really Free Lunch
tom B| 3.22.11 @ 4:32PM
I have always been interested in geothermal energy. Of course not every place in the world has ready, practical excess to that form of energy. Iceland gets a large percentage of its energy from geothermal for obvious. I think it is something like 90%...but Iceland has a small population. Of course we could always build power plants in Yellowstone Park, ouch!!!!
George Kimball| 3.24.11 @ 4:57AM
What happened in Japan was amazing. A six reactor facility with five in service was hit by an earthquake that shook it approximately ten times harder than it was designed for. (Compare - a car with bumpers for a 10 mph crash survives a 100 mph crash).
Then it is hit by a tsunami that all but obliterates the city around it. The reactor is still basically intact but has operational issues. When all the hoopla dies, the reactors will survive with a small amount of radiation released. A few people may die as a result of radiation exposure - maybe not. But compare that to the existing tragedy of over 20,000 killed by the same quake and tsunami.
In short, were it not for the fanatical anti-nuke mindset of the greens, this would be seen as what it is - an astonishing testament to the safety of nukes.
New nukes, not the ones in this article, but thorium breeder systems represent a huge step forward. They are intrinsically much safer than light water reactors, burn the waste of LWR's and don't use a fuel cycle that is useful for weapons. That is: safety, proliferation and waste are all solved problems. Current nuke waste alone is good for about 750 yrs. of electricity at current usage rates.
So will the US, where most of this was developed, benefit? I'm afraid the real answer is probably not. The greens are so far out of control and have so much power it is unreal. Even the global warming hoax, largely constructed by the same collection of fanatics, will not motivate them to join reality. When we're all shivering in the dark, have long been surpassed by other countries' economies, have thrown away a chance for US technology to be the driver of a new industry, screwed the workers who could have real jobs building and maintaining the plants... we will be bound up in litigation, choked by a comatose NRC...
Are we going to wake up? Or are we going to continue to let the power-lusting left destroy the country?
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:42PM
is good