Today I had the distinct displeasure or reading an article posted by the Center for American Progress (or lack thereof) entitled 10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy.  I found the piece to be universally lacking in areas of scientific merit, modern technology, and practical thought of any kind.  I have taken it upon myself to dissect, disprove, and debunk each of these supposed reasons not to harness the power of the atom to free us from the binds of foreign oil.

Enjoy.

1. “Nuclear faces prohibitively high-and escalating-capital costs…Nuclear power plant construction costs-mainly materials, labor, and engineering-rose by 185 percent between 2000 and 2007.”

Find me one product, commodity, or service in the known world that did not rise by a similar margin in that same period and I will be very surprised.  Did someone say “Gasoline?”

“…and well-placed wind turbines can produce electricity for less than 5 cents per kWh.”

By “well placed” do you mean in a spot that never has a lack of wind?  So all we need to do now is place 50 thousand wind turbines atop Mt. Everest and - presto - limitless energy.

2. “Plant construction is limited by production bottlenecks. Japan Steel is the only company in the world “capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel…but it can only produce four per year.”…China and India are increasing their nuclear capacity to meet growing energy needs.”

This sounds to me like there is market share for the taking.  So let’s build another facility capable of making these vessels right here in the US.  That IS the American way isn’t it?

I have to ask myself, if nuclear is so economically cumbersome, then why are China and India, the two fastest growing countries in the world, increasing their nuclear capacity?  That is a mystery, is it not?

3. “New nuclear plants probably won’t be designed by American companies.”

I guess the good folks at The Center for American Progress have never heard of the General Electric ESBWR or the Westinghouse AP1000. Both are generation III+ Nuclear reactors designed by American Engineers for American Utilities.

4. “Unresolved problems regarding the availability and security of waste storage.”

The people who tout this as a reason to shut down nuclear energy are the same people who routinely intervene in the Yucca Mountain Repository and the Spent Fuel Reprocessing both of which would solve the problem of nuclear waste and lower the cost of Nuclear Fuel.

5. “Nuclear faces concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues…Increased nuclear capacity would either make us more dependent on foreign uranium…”

The practice of nuclear fuel recycling will make plenty of Uranium available.  Also, forgive me, but I seem to recall another foreign dependency that might just pose a bigger problem than Uranium.  This comment is comedy at its best.

6. “Nuclear reactors require water use amid shortages.”

Two thirds of the world’s surface is covered with water and salt water works just fine for cooling a nuclear reactor.  If anything, nuclear energy is the only source of sufficient electricity to make desalination a viable solution to world water shortages.

7. “Safety concerns still plague nuclear power.”

Far more people have died or been harmed by plant accidents, mine collapses, and health hazards as a result of fossil fuels or “dirt-burners” than Nuclear Power - FAR more.

8. “Nuclear is already a mature technology-it will not get cheaper.”

Actually, the GE ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor) is a giant leap in reactor technology and can provide more electricity with 20% fewer complex components than any reactor currently in service.  To say a technology is “mature” is a quote best suited for the dark ages, not the 21st century.

9. “Other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build.”

So what do you do on a cloudy day with no wind?  Proponents of wind and solar have no answer for this question and I don’t expect one anytime soon.

10. “Nuclear subsidies take money away from more effective alternative energy subsidies.”

Sure, because the corn subsidies for Ethanol have worked wonders for the energy crisis, the American economy, and food prices worldwide.

I guess my point is, there is no good reason to not pursue nuclear energy as viable solution to the energy crisis.  If the opponents of nuclear energy won’t take the time to conjure up a believable, legitimate, FACT-BASED excuse to ignore the limitless energy that is at our fingertips, then they should step aside and allow Engineers and Scientists who are hard at work to solve the world’s energy problems.

~Man Overboard

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google
  • Sphinn