“After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get the industry moving again. Ahead of Gillispie are 15 bigger companies - well-known companies like Duke Energy, Unistar and Entergy - proposing to build plants.”
This should send shivers down the spines of the railroad industry. That’s 15 nuclear power plants that are basically replacing coal fired generation due to concerns about CO2 emissions and supposed climate change.
Who says the global warming scam-a-rama won’t hurt railroads?
BTW - folks, let’s keep this one on topic, e.g. how these things relate to the railroad industry, okay? Thanx.[^]
What was the actual, practical impediment that stopped the nuclear power industry from moving in the first place? It must have been something more substantial than just public perception of danger. Has that impediment been removed now in the interest of producing power without releasing CO2? Is the political force behind the elimination of CO2 willing to embrace nuclear energy as an alternative to coal generation? I suspect not. The only remedy I hear from them is the reduction of consumption even if it has to be accomplished by consumption taxes that raise the price.
No that was pretty much it. Three Mile Island, coupled with the movie, The China Syndrome, which came out almost the same time as the accident in Penn, pretty much scared people to the point that no plant has been built in the US since.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island coupled with a few typical over-hysterical hollywood movies turned the public firmly against nuclear power. Nevermind that Chernobyl was a victim of faulty design (the Soviets were never very good at actually ‘inventing’ nuclear technology - most of their info was gleaned from the US and they filled in the blanks were needed. Me thinks they paid for it dearly). Three Mile Island was actually a raging success story, as far as meltdowns are concerned. The American design was able to contain a meltdown long enough for it to be controlled. No radioactivity was released.
I think that if the greenies want to have ‘clean’ power (let’s face it, no energy production is without a certain degree of pollution) they are going to have to consider nuclear
But how does the public’s fear of nuclear power prevent a person from building a nuclear plant? If the builder can sell the electricity and has the money to build the plant, what stops him? I suspect that the public’s fear has translated into goverment restrictions that exist today. The only thing that has changed is a rising fervor to elimate the release of CO2.
If we had to eliminate all CO2 emissions from power generation, which approach would be more cost effective?
The waste generated won’t amount to enough to impact rail revenue one way or another. I would expect that new nuke plants will probably only soak up growth in usage and the only impact would be to slow revenue growth. Then, of course, there’s always the possibility that somebody will develop scrubber technology that will amiliorate the polution from coal. And what if, as per the germans in WWII, some genius develops an economically practical means of liquifying coal for use in vehicles?
This is a very expensive technology that is called a ‘scrubber’. It is pricey to put in, the technology is not really perfected, and you still have to clean the gunk off the collection elements and get rid of it somewhere. Long term operating and maintenance costs are high. Is it effective? Well I am sure that somehwere a politician is sleeping in a warm fuzzy dream - convinced that he has done his part to force power plants to clean up their act. Worse emissions are the mercury and sulfur - ever notice how these aren’t really discussed? CO2 can be scrubbed from the air by mother nature, and in fact this goes on every day. Plants use CO2 in photosynthesis to grow. A cheap and natural solution would be to plant more trees. Earth has no problem filtering out massive volcanic eruptions - eruptions that spew more CO2 then even Al Gore in his jet could muster- and that’s a lot! If the enviroment can handle a massive calamity like that it would have no problem filtering out the puny amounts of CO2 that we spew out of our power plants. Of more concern is the mercury and the sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide. These substances tend to have a very negative effect on anything that is alive, be it plant or animal.
I just can’t see that happening. Coal plants, for all of their pollution problems, are pretty cheap to operate. Trains can haul the coal cheaply. Aside from the air po
Not too long after the Three Mile Island incident, interest rates went well above 10%. Since nuclear plants are capital intensive and often took years from the time the plant was completed to the issuance of an operating license, building plants become very uneconomical.
One advantage of a nuke plant is that no CO2 is directly produced by plant operation (although there is indirect production from construction and operation). One of the things that made me wary of the Climate Change Lobby is that many of the same people complaining about climate change were also complaining about nuclear energy (e.g. the Green Parties in Europe).
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming–as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
FYI: Did you know that a typical coal-fired power plant actually released MORE radioactivity into the surrounding area than a properly managed nuclear-fired power plant? h
One, at Hanford. The others had the construction stopped on them and were left to rot. The BPA bought it from Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS).
Oregon caused PGE to close their only nuke which was across the river from Kalama, WA. when the steam turbine developed balance problems and PGE was making noises of not fixing it and GE (the maker) said “not our problem”. It now has been torn down. PGE customers paid to build it, operate it, and then tear it down. PGE wanted to build a second nuke at Pebble Springs (near the present Boardman Coal Fired Plant) but Oregon wouldn’t let them.
Okay, let’s stop right there. If you really want “the primary human cause of global warming”, look no further than your average large city. The Urban Heat Island effect can raise observed surface temperatures by as much as 7 degrees F. That is the only empirical, measurable human caused temperature effect. There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any causal effect on global temperatures, as it amounts to less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect potential.
And for the record, cutting down old growth trees and replacing them with new trees reduces the terrestrial release of greenhouse gases. Not sure if that’s what you meant, but there it is for clarification.
Keep in mind, I’m not arguing the point that combusting coal releases CO2. I’m saying it is wrong to demonize CO2 in the first place. CO2 is not a pollutant, never has been, never will be, and does not “cause” global warming despite what the Supreme Court tries to legislate from the bench. Remember, it is global warming that is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2, and man’s CO2 contributions pale in comparison.
Now, the rest of this…
[quote]
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflam
In Minnesota, the legislature has just passed the strongest renewable energy mandate in the U.S. It requires that 25% of the state’s electric power must be produced by wind and other renewables by 2025. It also requires that Excel Energy, the state’s largest utility company, derive 30% of the energy it produces from renewables by 2020.
What is fascinating is the total disconnect between the sponsors of this legislation and any expectation of additional cost to meet these mandates. I have read letters to the editor written by some of the sponsors that claim there will not be added cost. On the contrary, they contend that their enlightened green mandates will actually lower energy costs and provide new jobs and other forms of prosperity besides.
Representative David Hann disagrees. When the bill was being discussed, he asked the proponents to provide an estimate of the CO2 reduction that would result. They could not provide an estimate. He also asked what the impact would be on the ratepayers and was told the energy companies are still working on that answer. The Department of Commerce, however, did estimate that the CO2 reduction resulting from the mandate might not exceed 2%, and they estimate that the mandate will add considerable cost to businesses and consumers in the form of higher rates. Hann also points out that the mandate will require 2,000 miles of new transmission lines at a cost of six to nine billion dollars.
Meanwhile, the authors of the bill proclaim in their letter to the editor that: "In passing the standard, we reclaimed Minnesota’s stat
First heard that back in the mid-70’s - a related statistic is that the energy content of the uranium in the coal (assuming it is all fissioned by used in breeder reactors) is about equal to chemical energy content of the coal itself (this is assuming ~1ppm of U in coal). Some coals contain ~40ppm of Uranium and the ash from those coals could be properly classified as a low level radioactive waste.
One problem with siting a nuclear plant in a semi-arid or arid environment is that the thermal efficiency is typically 33% for a light-water plant. Conversely, the thermal efficiency of a combined cycle thermal plant can be as high as 60% - which would require 1/3rd the cooling water per megawatt-hour of a light-water nuclear plant. An integrated coal-gasification plant plus combined cycle plant makes a good deal of sense and would probably have much better control of emissions than a coal burning steam plant.
Several ways, none of them palatable, very easy, or cheap. Bury it deep…waaaaay deep, or ship it into to the Sun. The Sun is our friend.
Folks, I have said it before, every time we elbow out a little time and room, we pop another half a billion of us out over 20 years at which point we are right back where we started…needing more energy, and fast and cheaply to boot. Happens every time.
Personally, I like nuclear energy. We really shot ourselves in the foot by not embracing nuclear energy 25 years ago. Isn’t all this CO2 stuff neat…huh? Millions of tons of it…just here in N. America. You should see how it looks in Zagreb and other former Eastern Block cities. Cough, cough.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed into nuclear fuel. I think they’re called breeder reactors.
The problem as I see it is that the same people who have convinced the world’s double digit IQ crowd that CO2 is a pollutant, have just as much moral ground to declare water vapor a pollutant as well. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, responsible for 95 - 97% of the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic CO2 isn’t even a blip on the ol’ greenhouse effect radar screen by comparison. And the Supremes ruled that the EPA has to consider all greenhouse gases as pollutants.
If a majority of people can be hoodwinked into thinking CO2 is a pollutant, they just as well will buy into a claim that water vapor is a pollutant. Overstated stupidity has no limits.
At least steam from nuclear plants (as well as coal fired power plants) can be condensed and recycled into the water feedstock stream.
Now, there is some faint hope on the horizon. The one undeclared Republican for President, former Senator Fred Thompson, has shown that he gets it regarding the fraud of the global warming crowd, and if he were to officially declare the polls show that he would probaby win the Republican nomination. And there’s no way for the left to effectively censor the showing of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - eventually the word will get out.
That being said, those who feel that the railroads will be immune to hydrocarbon minimization are sadly lacking in analytical fastidiousness. Without coal, the railroads will all go broke. All the import intermodal in the world will not save them. Thus, it is the railroad leaders themselves who should be leading the charge to expose this global warming fraud once and for all, since they have the most to lose. Energy companies frankly don’t care, as they can simply pass on the cost of hydrocarbon alternatives onto their customers.