Comments on: Ignoring Nuclear

By: D. Ciurchea

D. Ciurchea — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:22:30 +0000

I am urprised by the statement that Canada is reprocessing.

As you know, CANDU reactors use natural Uranium. So, in terms of enricment, Uranium enters with 0.7% 235 end exits with 0.5% totalling a 0.2 burnup.

In standard PWR Uranium enters with 3% 235 end exits with 0.7%(like natural Uranium), i.e. a 2.3% burnup.

So, first, the burned CANDU fuel is not suited for reprocessing as PWR fuel is. There is no use for the Plutonium in spent CANDU fuel.

Secondly, the spent CANDU fuel takes ten times (10X) more space to store, a barrier in convincing people to buy CANDU.

I heard India, in the frame of its nuclear programme reprocessed all CANDU fuel for plutonium, but I don’t have a primary information on this.

By: Gary Miller

Gary Miller — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:57:01 +0000

Bottom line we need nukes. We can meet the needs of the green folks and drive the economy back to new highs but it needs to be based on low cost, no emission nuclear energy - just like all the countries with whom we are competing. The real question becomes, how do we really get this back on the table for discussion? What do we need to do to get this to the forefront of a national conversation and how do we drive that conversation to action. There are responsible answers to the waste question - but how do we get that into the public conversation so they can be an informed public?

You know there is a future to be had in nuclear energy when one of former founders of Greenpeace admits that it was a mistake to derail the efforts of the nuclear/utility industry. Let’s get back to the promise of nuclear energy, you may recall that it would be “too cheap to meter”!

By: Alan Gordon

Alan Gordon — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:33:46 +0000

The Administration, in conjunction with its druid-like caste of leftists, do not WANT the U.S. to be an industrial nation. Hence the export of jobs to China and elsewhere. They are no more concerned with the environment (lack of nuclear power) than they are about health care (lack of tort reform).

By: Mike Harris

Mike Harris — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:36:03 +0000

Alan Gartner hit the nail on the head when he says, “The Luddites are back in charge.” I’m in San Antonio, which is the largest (percentage wise) owner of nuclear power in Texas. About 20% of San Antonio’s power comes from nuclear. It’s the single best energy decision we’ve made in the last 50 years. Now we have an opportunity to go into an expansion project with the city of Houston (NRG Energy) and the local “green” advocates are trying their level best to shut down the project before it gets started and go for wind and solar instead. Wind and solar!

If we want to be serious about CO2 emissions, nuclear is THE option. Other renewables will surely come down in price; but they’re nowhere near competitive now.

By: Alan Gartner

Alan Gartner — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:21:10 +0000

The Luddites are back in charge. However, this is temporary. The reason it is temporary is because the people who espouse this “turn back the clock” mentality, have not fully disclosed the impact. They have raised the banner of “green jobs” and green-fired growth, but the reality is that the net growth of the economy will be negative and the resulting unemployment will provide a response that is not just hostile to the greenies, but unfortunately agressively attacks anyone focused on good solid analysis of our energy needs. The last time we had this type of response was in the 50s when build it now and everywhere created cracker-box houses, tilt-up buildings, and glass skyscrapers.

Neither approach is good for us. On the one hand we build stuff that is unsustainable and ultimately costs more than it is worth. On the other hand, we halt progress that has resulted in constantly improving efficiency, reliability, and lowered costs. we need divine intervention to pull us out of this one.

By: John B. Ashmun

John B. Ashmun — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:50:43 +0000

William Tucker’s “Ignoring Nuclear” is so good - it begs circulation! Would like to e-mail it to interested parties. Provisions for this?