Re/Action on Climate Protection

Last word on nuclear

There has been a lively debate on nuclear power and wind power on this blog, and here over the last month or so. Unfortunately, it is time for me to move on to other topics.

"Impossibility" of nuclear financing

"It's hard to imagine people putting a $5 billion bet on new reactors, as matters stand now, with uncertainty around climate change policy and impossibility of getting financing for them in private markets."

-Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and later head of the public service commissions of both New York and Maine

From "New dawn for nuclear power is distant" NY Times

Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal

One of our commenters, David Bradish, has asked how wind is more cost effective than nuclear to replace coal. The short answer is: It is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and it is a lower risk to investors, which means that the cost of financing for wind is lower on private capital markets.

Replace Coal with Wind

Can wind power replace coal in the US for generating electricity? The answer is YES, and it can be done more cost-effectively than using nuclear.

Long Now Nuclear/Climate Change Debate

Last Friday, 1/13, I attended a debate hosted by Stewart Brand's organization, Long Now, on nuclear power and climate change. The debate addressed whether the threat of climate change justified aggressive development of nuclear energy, along with renewables.

Some Items of possible interest

Due to a glitch in the email subscription system, the notice did not go out for this post, Connecting the Dots - Wind, Nuclear and Local Action on Climate Protection.

Also, I have been having an exchange with Per Stromsjo on his blog, hereon the recently announced "Oil Free Sweden" initiative. Per is a Swedish citizen who thinks these efforts miss the mark, and feels that Sweden should go nuclear.

Connecting the dots - Wind, Nuclear and Local Action on Climate Protection

Is nuclear necessary? Can large-scale wind and solar "do it?" What do these important questions have to do with local action on climate change? Choices that we make at the local level CAN affect trends in large-scale power generation. Let's take a look at how that can work.

Nuclear or Wind better for Climate Protection?

Today in the media, one often sees the claim being made that "nuclear is the best power generation technology to deal with climate change, since it emits no GHGs". This is a hugely deceptive claim, since it ignores two key points: the hazardous and toxic nature of the nuclear fuel cycle, the tremendous amount of energy available from wind.

What's up with this nuclear power stuff?

The exploration of the nuclear fuel cycle is a bit far afield from what we normally discuss in this blog. Usually we look at local approaches to moving away from fossil fuels and increasing carbon uptake. However, with nuclear power, what is at issue is the grassroots political support for different large-scale, non-GHG emitting electrical power generation technologies. Why should people support large scale renewables such as wind as opposed to construction of more nuclear and "clean coal" plants?

Nuclear fuel production - costs

Nuclear fuel cycle:
1) Mine uranium
2) Produce "yellow cake" uranium
3) Create nuclear reactor fuel
4) Use the fuel to produce heat
5) Reprocess spent fuel
6) dispose of high level nuclear waste

Let's look at the impacts of uranium mining and reactor fuel production.