Gregoire: nuclear energy must be considered

[wtmusic]

Wash. gov says nuclear energy must be considered

WASHINGTON -- Gov. Chris Gregoire is applauding President Barack Obama's recent push for nuclear power - a stance that could cause political headaches in her state.

Gregoire, a Democrat, met with Obama and 10 other governors Wednesday to talk abut energy. Obama called for increased ethanol production and new technology to limit pollution from the use of coal.

Gregoire has spent much of her career working to ensure cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state. She says the Northwest is in good shape to develop alternative energy sources such as hydropower, wind, solar and - increasingly - cellulosic ethanol from wood chips and grass. She says nuclear energy must be part of that mix.

With global climate change, Gregoire says "options that were off the table now are on the table."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_obama_energy_gregoire.html

[Vincardog]

1. No nuclear energy until private companies put up the money to build it and are responsible for all

liabilities. If is is such a great fking idea let EXON bankroll it.

[Tesha]

2. It would also be nice if we had an actual plan to deal with the waste...

...instead of just leaving it "dry casked" at all the
power plants hoping against hope that someone
has a good idea in the near future of what to do
with it.

Tesha

[wtmusic]

4. Absolutely - the fossil fuel industries carry their own weight!

"During the fiscal years of 2002-2008 the United States handed out subsidies to fossil fuel industries to a tune of 72 billion dollars, while renewable energy subsidies, during the same period, reached 29 billion dollars."

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html

Nevermind.

[Vincardog]

8. Do you think I am in favor of continuing to poison our air land and water?

[kristopher]

3. Carefully considered... and rejected.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

http://www.grist.org/article/how-much-will-nuclear-cost-us-citizens
Nuking the taxpayers
How much will nuclear cost U.S. citizens?
Sue Sturgis

...Amount the Department of Energy under President Bush originally proposed spending on loan guarantees for nuclear reactors: $18.5 billion

Amount the Obama administration is now proposing to spend: $54 billion

...The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the risk of default on these loans, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab: 50 percent

Potential risk exposure to taxpayers based on various proposed scenarios for new nuclear plant construction, as calculated by the Union of Concerned Scientists: $360 billion to $1.6 trillion

Current price estimate for a new reactor: $10 billion

...Original cost estimate for the two reactors at the South Texas Project, which involves NRG Energy, CPS Energy, and Toshiba:
$5.4 billion ...Adjusted cost estimate announced last fall: $13 billion ...Current cost estimate for the project: $17 billion

Amount in damages CPS is seeking via a lawsuit that alleges NRG and Toshiba conspired to mislead its officials on the reactors’ cost: $32 billion


...Year in which Forbes called the previous round of nuclear plant construction “the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale:” 1985

Estimated additional amount it would cost to generate electricity today from 100 new nuclear reactors instead of generating the same amount of power from a combination of energy efficiency and renewables: $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion

http://www.grist.org/article/how-much-will-nuclear-cost-us-citizens

[ensho]

5. kick

nt

[BeFree]

6. How can a politician lose?

The people who are anti-nukes are also liberals, so a liberal spouting such nonsense will not lose votes over a pro-nuke stance, but will gain votes from the radical right because they are speaking their language.

We all know nukes are history -- there ain't gonna be any more nukes built, so speaking for nukes and knowing it ain't gonna happen is a winner.

[wtmusic]

7. Nukes are history, but the DOE is handing over $56B in loan guarantees

to make it look like they aren't?

Pretty expensive sleight of hand.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_loan_guarantee_expansion_0202102.html

[madokie]

9. Has any of that 56 billion been spoken for yet?

a guarantee is a co sign, am I not right? I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't co sign someone who I thought was going to default, and yes I've co signed before and probably will again.

[wtmusic]

10. Not that I'm aware of

but the money won't be available until FY 2011 anyway.

[amborin]

11. found that old article on Obama and Exelon (nuclear power corp)

"Nuclear Leaks And Response Tested Obama

By MIKE McINTIRE




When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation
had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama,took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ''the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.''

''I just did that last year,'' he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. ....


snip

.......The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon's support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. ......"

snip

The New York Times

February 3, 2008 Sunday
Late Edition - Final

[kristopher]

12. Would you share what you see as the significance of this article.

You post it fairly often, and I don't get the reason.

[amborin]

13. i've posted it once, here, today n/t