The Environment California Research & Policy Center concluded that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions, researchers said.
Currently, no new nuclear reactors are under construction in the country, and no U.S. power company has ordered a nuclear plant since 1978. All orders for nuclear facilities after fall 1973 were eventually canceled, according to the report.
Meanwhile, building a reactor would probably take around a decade – 2016 at the earliest, the study suggested. Without an existing infrastructure, manufacturing reactor parts with the dearth of trained personnel would be difficult.
But even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the total power produced would reduce total U.S. emissions only 12% over the next 20 years, which Environment California deemed “far too little, too late.”
The $600-billion upfront investment necessary for the 100 reactors would slice out twice as much carbon pollution in that period if invested in clean energy, according to the report. And given the costs of running a power plant, clean energy could deliver five times as much progress per dollar in lowering pollution.
<!--
google_ad_client = "pub-2189376323632485";
/* 728x90, created 5/18/08 */
google_ad_slot = "3866831776";
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
//-->
DavidWalters said:
I think it's absolutely correct *politically* to raise the need for 100 new reactors "by 2020".
Alexander, et al, are not talking about small sub-200MW reactors. They are talking 100 reactors of the 1150 MW or more. We are talking about 102 to 150 GWs of nuclear energy. This is what we need.
I agree with Dan that right now this is impossible. And, leaving it up to professional politicians who simply are incapable of articulating the passion we need to develop the program to build this many reactors is simply...lacking.
But the world is not standing still. The nuclear industry is totally global. It's not as if we need to have the large 400 plus ton hydraulic forges in the lower 48...we can get them overseas as everyone else is doing. The large-forging growth rate is increasing exponentially. This is huge and the US can, if it has the will, to jump on this bandwagon. It's not one of infrastructure, it's one national will. We dont' have it, the Indians, Koreans and Chinese do.
- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2009-11-28 20:41 — David WaltersDan Yurman said:
- reply
- 0 points
Thu, 2009-11-26 10:35 — Dan YurmanRodAdams said:
- reply
- 0 points
Wed, 2009-11-25 22:17 — Rod AdamsCharlesBarton said:
- reply
- 0 points
Wed, 2009-11-25 12:41 — Charles BartonNathan Wilson said:
So the big problem with nuclear power is that it is growing too slowly? Let's find a way to speed it up. Our parent's generation figured out how to build 100 reactors in about two decades, so can we!
We also need to convince the mainstream media to ignore these phony cost estimates from anti-nuclear groups (the utilities buy power plants from real companies, not lobbyists). The real-world price of nuclear is still less than half that of solar, even in the desert.
- reply
- 0 points
Tue, 2009-11-24 22:01 — Nathan WilsonCharlesBarton said:
- reply
- 0 points
Mon, 2009-11-23 15:29 — Charles BartonDan Yurman said:
- reply
- 0 points
Mon, 2009-11-23 04:32 — Dan YurmanPost new comment