Mon 21 Jul 2008
Bring Nuclear Energy Back to its Atomic Roots
Posted by Greg Molyneux under Energy, Society, Technology
BOOM! We’ve all seen it. Dreamt it. Imagined it. Feared it even. The kind of nuclear holocaust that kept Sarah Conor up at night. Being raised in the fallout of the Cold War, we grew up with Orwellian conditioning riddled with visions of mushroom clouds and nuclear destruction. Mutual annihilation was what we were assured, and fear of all things nuclear permeated humanity.
Whatever nuclear was - it wasn’t good.
Thanks in part to the Cold War, the nuclear label was forever tarnished and fear would forever predominate any idea to which it was attached. It was certain nuclear energy was to fight an uphill battle if it was ever going to succeed. It is the misappropriation of labels that has brought us to an unfortunate impasse with the development and implementation of clean, safe nuclear energy.
Labels are bad, mm-kay.
For whatever reason, the labels we attach to (insert noun here) become the superficial judgement society perceives whenever they think about, hear, or encounter said noun. Labels lead to bias, and improper and often times over simplified generalizations drawn upon its host. Nevertheless it is human nature. It makes logical sense to name and categorize things so we can bring about proper and quick order to a world that exponentially grows in complexity. Labels help us to know the system.
Unfortunately labels help us to diminish the system as well. This is precisely the problem facing the proliferation of nuclear energy. But there I said it - nuclear and proliferation in the same sentence; two intense labels with grossly negative connotations. Both of which systematically instill subconscious fear into society. The same fear that keeps clean and safe energy from blossoming as our reliance on fossil fuels comes to a head.
It all goes back to the atom.
Fear not, I have a solution. I suggest we drop the nuclear label altogether and revert back to the industry’s foundation in atomic energy. Not only is this label far more benign, but it recalls the historically uplifting discovery of the atom - the fundamental building block of life. The atom is a wholesome label people can easily deal with. Atoms are friendly, they hold the door for you, hell they even build universes. The pro-nuclear community needs to get on the atomic bandwagon and start beating the dream for clean, safe and efficient atomic energy as the long-term solution for our mass output energy needs.
Except, what’s in a name?
Image Used in this Post
Licorne 4 image courtsey of Flickr user Pierre J. published under the CC license.
About the Author
Greg Molyneux
A resident web slinger and cubicle dweller. Wannabe graphic designer. A pseudo jack of all trades and definite master of none. Self-proclaimed history buff that is passed the prime he never had.23 Responses to “ Bring Nuclear Energy Back to its Atomic Roots ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Energy Diversity is the Solution | Atlas Editorials
September 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am[...] clean and extremely cheap once you do the math. There is a great discussion on blog site Babeled which proves this. The biggest concern with this type of power is safety. When things go wrong [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
TMI (Three Mile Island) and Chernoble definitely did noting to ease the negative connotations of anything having to do with nuclear. Great post on the power of words and the imagery they invoke. Perhaps you are on to something by changing the name.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Just out of curiosity, how long does it take to build an atomic power plant and how much money does it cost?
Where would the money come from to build just one atomic powerplant in each of the 50 states and what would we do for energy from now until they are ready?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Those are questions that Jack could answer, as I have no idea. Certainly we would continue burning coal between now and then as new plants were built.
No doubt there is enormous capital investment and political hurdles to overcome, and now doubt the plants would not come cheap. But it would be a step in the right direction as being part of a long term solution.
I also think personal enhancements to energy: windmills, solar panels, and some conservation can also go a long way for energy
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It looks like it costs about $5 billion per power plant according to Wikipedia. The article is really in-depth and quite impressive. I suggest anyone interested in this topic check it out.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 am
It looks like it takes about 5 years to build.
So, $250 Billion would get us a powerplant in each state in the year 2013 if it was approved tomorrow. Add the extra security costs during construction, catastrophe insurance, fissible fuel, waste disposal/recycling, and employee radiation detection. Is there a ROI?
Dont get me wrong, I am pro atomic energy but is it economically feasible?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
I am a proponent of Atomic Eneergy, but it doesn’t seem like it is the panacea to our energy needs. Right now there are 108 Nuclear power plants in operation in the U.S. and they provide a small fraction of the required power - estimated at 20-22%. Therefore, even adding one plant per state will only nudge up that percentage by a small fraction. Estimates seem to be that the U.S. needs more on the order of 400 plants, which would cost about $1.5 trillion dollars just to build (300 plant increase times $5 billion per plant).
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
If the federal government had a freak out over the security threat posed by our current 108 atomic facilities, I can’t see how it’d be realistic to imagine 400 atomic facilities being built until the “war on terror” has long subsided. Maybe the 22nd Century at the rate we’re going.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
i know where they can get the money though. End the war on drugs and get everyone in jail for possession to pay a $5000 fine to get out of jail. Then they can redirect all the fine money plus all the billions of dollars they spend incarcerating responsible Americans on something useful. Fire all those bozos in the DEA and tell them if they want, they can become Homer Simpson.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Those bozos could the become Denizens of Energy that is Atomic (DEA).
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
$5B Each. Private industry pays for half out of pocket. Govt provides 50% of cost on a loan to paid back over first 10 years of operation. At 1.5 cents per kW-hr to generate this is absolutely economically feasible plus construction jobs plus on average 600 full time employees for a generating station.
Duel-Unit sites (those stations with two reactors) are more expensive to build but the two units can share some common costs making these sites more cost effective. Most plans for future builds involve duel unit sites or adding a seconds reactor to an existing single unit site.
A Generation III+ reactor can put out 1500 mW electric - times two reactors that is a 3,000 MegaWatt power station. That is an impressive amount of energy for one site to produce and a tremendous sigh of releif to a very strained US power grid.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Plus, wouldn’t economies of scale factor into a widespread atomic initiative throughout our country further reducing the cost per plant?
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The security issue is moot. There are plenty of targets in the US that will cause FAR more destruction and are WAY, WAY, WAY less protected than nuclear power station. The security measures in place at one of these plants are impressive to say the least.
When the zombies come, I’m going to work!
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Greg,
If you consider the boost to a local economy when a plant is built and the tax benefits the residents of these communities enjoy, your absolutely right.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Greg and Jack,
While I agree with everything you say, I still think you’re being slightly naive for thinking this is a possibility in the near future.
You are underestimating the power of fear to slow down progress. Even if security is tight in reality, in people’s imaginations nuclear power conjures up bad images, and terrorist attacks don’t make the images any more appealing.
When the Homeland Security Advisory System drops to a “Low” threat level, then maybe we’ll see atomic plants being built on a large scale.
Plus as long as terrorism is a national issue, nuclear energy will just be used as a bipartisan chip to distract potential supporters. Either Republican or Democrat will latch on to its benefits or drawbacks according to the political climate when that time comes around.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Andrew, how am I underestimating the power of fear? The whole post is about the fear associated with Nuclear Energy.
Reading Comprehension Level Zero.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I read the post, but I was responding specifically to Jack’s statement that the security issue is moot. I threw your name in cause I thought I read you agreeing with him on this, but looking back you never did.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Okay good. I was a little confused for a moment. Not that confusing me is a tough thing to do.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Andrew,
You do realize that both planes that hit the trade center on 911 flew right past the reactor at Nine Mile Point.
The reason being there are targets that are much softer, easier to hit, and more effective to hit than a nuclear power plant.
Also let’s try to remember, terrorism is a lousy excuse to not do something. The longer we go without building nuclear the longer we finance terrorism when we fill our tanks.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“terrorism is a lousy excuse to not do something”
…excellent point Jack!
July 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Jack,
I 100% agree with what you are saying. I just wonder whether the majority of Americans will.
Fear clouds the truth no matter how obvious it is. I mean, you could go on a lecture circuit and talk on all the news channels about how safe nuclear plants are and about how they aren’t prime targets for terrorists…but if the majority are fixated on ideas of radioactive waste and a repeat of Chernobyl, then you can forget any effort to educate the majority.
The only way nuclear energy will have a swift revolution during this war on terror, is if it is supported and praised on national television by an extremely popular president (Obama 2008 - 2016).
Other than that, fear trumps truth. (Bush reelection 2004)
July 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
…did you Tarot cards tell you this?
August 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
It will take a lot of reactors to arrive at a point where Solar, wave and wind power can become self-sustaining. Don’t count on oil to get us to this point, we are out of cheap oil and almost out of oil at any price! We need a President who serves America, not big oil or big business - If the U.S. had chosen to be a moral people, and leaving Iraqi oil alone, and following Al Gore, decided to develop the South Western deserts, with the technology of the times - solar/thermal-molten sodium - electricity installations, for the same amount of money as that war cost, ($650 Billion), today, we would be tapping into the largest, renewable, sustainable, energy source the world has ever known. It would have paid every energy bill in the U.S.A. for maintenance fees only - FOREVER! It would be equivalent to an oil field that can NEVER run dry! Low cost electric power, and storeable hydrogen gasoline replacement from the electricity, for all!
After the millions of murders, and $650 billions of dollars, borrowed from our children’s futures and pissed away, with thousands of our own and others maimed and disfigured for life, millions of families utterly destroyed, ours and theirs, we are no closer to Iraqi oil production than the Iraqis are!
The next time you hear a blithering idiot spoiled brat, drunken, drug addicted, sociopath, rich Arabic saber dancing daddie’s boy oilman, stand at a microphone and threaten YOUR safety with someone ELSE’S weapons, remember what you lost America, remember, and weep! (also see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan)