"die in a nuclear holocaust if we continue building more and more nuclear power stations on the planet earth." -- nuclear holocaust and nuclear power have no practical relationship in current physics, as I've pointed out at other times.

The author discusses 80% HEU from a "research reactor" (military project) as if it were part of common processes involving civilian nuclear power. Civilian nuclear power fuel is never enriched beyond 5%, so this material was either fuel for a military submarine reactor, or preliminary bomb-grade material. NOTHING TO DO with current civilian power reactors.

Well-known fuel re-processing / reuse techniques not presently used because a) natural uranium is so cheap b) people like this author have arranged to have it outlawed so their arguments can sound more scary; can eliminate much of the "waste problem"

I personally support replacing as much fossil fuel use with solar energy as possible, but am realistic about what's possible, and also must support nuclear, hydro, and perhaps even some wind generation. But articles such as this, rife with error, simply discredit the supporters of solar.

But why bother.

Since the estimate was from the year 2007 we’ll divide that by 28 years = 383,123,571 MWh of new generation per year worldwide will be required.

Now the question becomes how will we meet that demand without using all sources possible.

There are currently 104 nuclear generating stations operating in the US. They currently produce less than 3 quads of electricity, operating at ~90% capacity factor.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf

Also, Victor Bush's 15% assumption is almost certainly wrong, particularly if carbon emissions controls are ever implemented.

You say

"Given the nuclear industry's poor track record it's highly unlikely that ten reactors could be built within two decades"

In France over 40 reactors were built in approximately 2 decades. In China there are over 23 reactors uncer construction which will come on line in the next 5 years. The USA constructed over one hundred in a 25 year period. Clearly the nuclear industry is well able to exceed 10 reactor in 2 decades - by a large margin. Much of the delays are caused by people such as yourself who put forth specious arguments and delay construction at every conceivable opportunity.

And the following one had me laughing all the way to the local nuclear waste management facility. It is 10 miles away and very safe indeed.

"All of this waste emits radiation and heat, meaning that it will eventually corrode any container and can prove lethal to nearby life forms."

Containers are made of concrete not metal. The fuel is stored dry there is no water. The storage containers are so ridiculously over designed they will last many years beyond their design life of 50 years. Radiation does not cause corrosion. That is a chemical process. The radiation levels after 50 years would allow one to store a used fuel bundle in your living room with no adverse effects but don't eat it.

I am not against solar power but it has some very large drawbacks the solutions to which have not been anywhere close to adequately explained.

The production of solar panels is a very energy intensive process and I suspect that more energy goes in to making and installing them than could ever be captured from the Sun. An energy net loss. Why would we do that?

Finally as I am sure you already know but choose not to admit, nuclear power plants cannot explode like a nuclear weapon and therefore your use of the phrase "nuclear holocaust" is designed to fear monger and reduces the credibility of your post to that of junk mail.

Malcolm

But Ramanathan if you are going to write a criticle article on nuclear power please get your facts straight. People will likely listen to you then.

Malcolm

You asked the right question! Why the Arab Countries are going for 4 nuclear power plants. The answer is simple....to make weapons...you better ask Dr.Mohd. Elbaradei in private...he will tell you. A Cyanide pill always kill even if it is coated with chocolate...so is nuclear power

From your calculations you stated that "about 50 reactors or 100 typical coal or gas plants" will be needed.

From my research, the average annual production of a nuclear power plant in 2008 (most recent data I could find), was about 12.4 billion kilowatt hours (kWh). So if we divide the projected annual energy needs worldwide by the annual average production of a nuclear power plant we get approximately 32 nuclear power plants per year for the next 25 years starting today.

So weather is 32 or 50 every year for the next 25 years, the point is that, it is going to require due diligence to come close. We can include renewables as much as possible but the reality is, we will need something else to maintain the current trend.

Rooftop solar is certainly an option, and a better option in some places than in others. However, there are also a few trivial complications. Trees may make some installations impractical, and I would argue that the cooling effect of trees in summer will outweigh the value of foregone electricity production. At times where there is little or no solar radiation because night has fallen or the weather has turned foul, there needs to be some means of either storing excess production at other times, which is prohibitively expensive today, or there needs to be an other supply resources.

By the same token, nuclear power will not be able to provide for all of our energy needs, in part because it is only economical at high capacity factors, and in part because it is not flexible enough to follow aggregate customer demand.

Similarly, natural gas is not the single answer, if for no other reason than exploiting potentially large reserves of shale gas entails environmental risks of its own.

We need a diversified portfolio of supply sources. Nuclear power needs to be a part of that portfolio, along with solar, wind, natural gas, and for the time being, coal. Of course there are risks, but for reasons already cited by some of the other commenters, I'm not prepared to say that one source is any more or less risky than the others.

Nuclear electricity production is apparently one of the higher, or highest, consumers of water for electricity production, we read.

We focus on low power, fast development, super-reliable SCADA techology.

http://www.prosefights.org/cs/c/c.htm

Future nuclear plants will likely use higher temperature and pressure steam increasing efficiency to maybe 40%? This would still be below Super critical plants getting >40% but the amount of cooling would not be drastically less per kWh than new nuclear plants. Unless I am missing something I don’t see cooling water requirements as being a serious negative for nukes.

As for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (ACADA) it is not clear to me how this bears on the choice of fuels, the source of the heat. (Bill, I did go to that disjointed site you recommended but alas I am not equipped to understand a word of it.)

There are people in our planet who give more importance to wealth than health. They are the ones who speak in favor of nuclear power taking care of our energy needs because nuclear power is too economical compared to renewable energy sources.

I, and most of those I know who are pro-nuclear, favor it precisely because we believe it is cleaner, safer, and far healthier for the planet than the alternative of continued reliance on fossil fuels. You have every right, Mr. Menon, to challenge those beliefs -- hopefully with facts and numbers rather than myths and distortion -- but you do not have the right to insult us and impune our motives.

Actually, he has the right to insult us and impugn our motives. He has the right to speak. He does not have the right to be heard. We heard him this time; and, we exercised our right to respond. We do not have to hear him again. We can tune him out, since we can't turn him off.

Ed

Well your position that UAE is building nuclear power plants to make weapons simply confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about. 1. You do not need a nuclear reactor to make an atom bomb. You need an enrichment plant. UAE is NOT building an enrichment plant. 2. Developing a weapon this way is much more difficult since the materials are now radioactive and require special handling equipment. A vastly more difficult and complicated process requiring a level of infrastructure UAE does not have. Separating out the fissile isotopes of Plutonium is not a simple task and UAE is not building a separation plant. If they were building these facilities (as the North Koreans already have) then I might agree with you. They are not therefore the building of a nuclear power plant does not in any way shape or form mean you automatically are building a nuclear weapon. Besides any weapon developed based on fission is a mere cap gun compared to fusion weapons the USA and Russia have in spades. 3. Making a nuclear weapon is only part of what is required. One needs a delivery system capable of delivering it. 4. The UAE as is most of the middle east very concerned that its oil fields are not going to last forever. Once the oil is gone it is gone for good. A good enough reason to invest in nuclear power to me.

So it seems you argue based on political rhetoric not fact. You need to take a course in nuclear physics I think.

Malcolm

I have worked in quite a few nuclear plants worldwide and they are by far the cleanest and safest plants both from a worker safety and a public safety perspective.

And if Ramanthan was really so concerned about the health and welfare of people he would forsake driving a car since it has many thousands of time more likellihood of killing or seriously injuring someone than all the nuclear power plants in the world combined.

So put the statement where it rightly belongs - in the garbage along with the rest of the article.

Malcolm

Will you be kind enough to enlighten this reader.....

Ramanathan Menon: You are so right and it's a pleasure to read what you have written. In addition, add the problem of securing containment from terrorist attack. Before 9/11 there was no problem of flying planes into buildings, now the problem of flying planes loaded with explosives into the containment structure MUST be considered. Mr. Menon, another question; Does anyone have within a factor of 5 a factual estimate of what it cost to build a nuclear facility? In this cost I include the costs not only of design, construction, the cost of mining, but the cost of permitting which in most developed countries is prohibitive. And lastly can we get a reliable supply of fuel?

Joseph Langenberg

====

However while it is true to say that nuclear is best suited to base load generation that is due to the construction costs not the technology. Nuclear reactors can be designed to follow the load and in France they of course do just that because heir installed nuclear capacity is vastly greater than the base load requirements in France.

From a cost perspective one wants to run a nuclear plant at as close to 100% capacity factors as possible since that gives you a better rate of return on the capital invested. The fuel cost is much the same at full load or part load.

So it is not a limitation of the technology it is simply investors getting best value for money.

The corollary of course is that if you are prepared to accept reduced rates of return providing ALL the worlds electricity with nuclear power is perfectly feasible as the French have quite clearly demonstrated.

The popular myth that nuclear power can only meet base load requirements is not correct. Of course if this limit is applied then only gas oil or coal can meet the peaks of electricity consumption that occurs in all societies around the world. Solar and wind are too unpredictable and in most cases increase the amount of fossil fuel burned. This is because the fossil plants must be operating to pick up the load as soon as the wind drops or the sun is shielded by clouds or it snows on your solar collectors.

Of all the power technologies available only nuclear power can meet all of the demand without CO2 emissions.

Malcolm

More nonsense. The containment structures of nuclear power plants are easily able to withstand the impact of ANY aeroplane full of explosives or not. They are the strongest and most robust commercial structures on the planet bar none. These structures are several feet thick of heavily reinforced concrete and designed to survive such impacts without affecting the integrity of the reactor containment.

The aeroplane will disntegrate. The containment structures will be undamaged.

Malcolm

Yes we most certainly can. Go to the World Nuclear Association website for facts about the supply of Uranium. It is a common material in the earths crust - about the same abundance as tin.

About half of the nuclear plants in the USA are operating on ex Russian warhead highly enriched uranium and have been for about 12 years.

Most of the worlds Uranium is in Australia and Canada - very reliable suppliers of fuel and among the most stable countries on earth.Cameco is using in-situ mining technology in Wyoming to increase the supply of U3O8 from the USA.

Uranium is also found at about 3 ppm in seawater and the extraction technology has already been developed in Japan. At present U3O8 prices it is not economic however it IS there and could fuel thousands of nuclear reactors for many years.

Known supplies of Uranium without any recycling (once through technology) is sufficient for at least 72 years more than any other fuel source.

So most definitely a reliable fuels source - much more reliable than oil I would add - and plentiful. Add to that the technology of recycling spent fuel and you will clearly see that the supply of reliable fuel to nuclear reactors now and in the future is assured.

But I am sure like all the other irrefutable facts presented it will not alter your opinion one iota since your opinion is not based on fact but a political posture or ideology where facts have no value.

Malcolm

In a 2007 poll carried out on behalf of the European Commission, in France 59% of the people polled were in favour of a reduction of nuclear power in the power mix while only 28% had favoured an increased role for nuclear energy in order to combat climate change. The French result is close to the EU27 average where 61% favour a decrease and 30% an increase of the nuclear share.

In a June 2008 poll for the European Commission on the general question whether fairly in favour or totally in favour of energy production from nuclear power stations average positive opinions in the EU27 increased by 7% to 44% compared to a precedent study from 2005. But while in 20 countries favourable opinions increased, in France the share did not move from the previous level at 52%. A total of 82% of the French – the second highest level behind Greece and Sweden – totally agreed or tended to agree with the statement that "there is no safe way of getting rid of high level radioactive waste". French citizens represented the second largest share in the EU27 (behind Luxemburg) to disagree with the suggestion that "deep underground disposal represents the most appropriate solution for long-term management of high level radioactive waste.".

Ask the question do you prefer nuclear power made in France over the importation of middle eastern oil and natural gas and the results will be different. Take the polls around a nuclear power plant in France - those that are be most affected by the industry and you will find nearly 100% support for nuclear power.

Poll results depend entirely on who you ask and what you ask.

As is typical when you have no technical argument that stands any scrutiny you resort to "the people don't like it argument" which is both bogus and meaningless.

There are currently 62 reactors under construction around the world over 122 in the late planning stages and 443 in operation. I think you have lost any hope of stopping or even slowing the growth of nuclear energy in the world. why don't you just give up an focus on industries that are really dangerous to human health like mining coal that kills thousands of miners yearly. Or car driving that kills in the millions annually.

I would have more respect for your opinions if you put your effort into industries that cause massive damage to the environment. Like chopping down vast tracts of the Amazon rain forest to produce sugar cane to make ethanol for cars.

Instead you choose to berate what is very demonstrably the safest industry on the planet. Indeed the safest industry mankind has ever created.

Talk about Bhopal a chemical factory that killed 4000 and maimed tens of thousands for life.

Talk about the oil explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers and polluted vast areas of ocean.

Talk about the Exxon Valdiz that polluted Alaska

Talk about thesse things before you utter a word about the safety of nuclear power plants and an industry about which you admirably demonstrate you know absolutely nothing.

Malcolm

Let me reproduce your degrading and demeaning comment about me:

"Talk about thesse things before you utter a word about the safety of nuclear power plants and an industry about which you admirably demonstrate you know absolutely nothing"

This comment reflects your 'Frog in the Well' attitude. Let me remind you that what you had learned so far is equivalent to a handful of soil and what you are yet to learn is the whole universe. So don't go above board tom toming you are the only learned guy about nuclear power or nuclear industry.

You have the freedom to air your opinion but you have no right to right off another person's knowledge and wisdom. Please take this in the right perspective.

With best regards

.

Please read the words 'right off' as 'write off'....

One wonders what influence the above information might have upon poll results regarding future electric energy supply choices.

Any poll which offers an anonymous "holier than thou" choice will see a far higher (3-4x) "holier than thou" response than is seen at the cash register when a real buying decision is being made and real money is being spent.

Ed

We learn about the universe by making hypotheses and verifying the truth of those hyotheses by verficiation and experiments.

I do indeed know a great deal about the nuclear business certainly sufficient to make the observation that much of the "information" you air as fact is not fact at all but fiction based entirely on your political views of nuclear.

It is a fact that the nuclear industry is easily the safest in the world bar none and yet despite these well proven facts you make implication after implication that it is not.

We will never learn about the universe through nonsense full of factual errors and mistakes such as your post above.

I will write no more - you are not worth my time since your biassed opinions will never be changed by factual argument.

Malcolm

There are plenty of folks cheering for gas now, though typically as a "bridge fuel". I refer to those folks as "bridge fools", because there is no way investors would put up the funds necessary for the massive expansion of the natural gas transmission system required to move the incremental "bridge fuel" to the new gas CCT plants which would consume it. There is also no way investors would provide the funds necessary to build the new "bridge" CCT palnts.

The typical "bridge fuel" scenario is ~20 years, roughly the half-life of the facilities necessary to "build" the bridge. Therefore, the investors would end up "holding the bag". The depreciation rates for the "bridge" facilities could be doubled to account for the shortened useful life of the facilities, but that would adversely impact their competitiveness.

I present the numbers only to suggest that they would have a significant influence on the poll results; and, an even more significant influence on buying decisions. Certainly, any or all of those numbers could change over time. However, the consumer making the buying decision must choose among them based on their current relative costs. I though about removing the gas number, because it was not germaine to the discussion above, but it was contained in a quote which I chose not to "Dowd-ify". :-)

Ed

You might find this interesting:

http://theenergycollective.com/ed-reid/46401/conceptual-plan-zero-us-carbon-emissions-and-energy-independence-2050?ref=p-oth

Ed

Let me put the final nail in nuclear power's coffin. As an ex-nuclear engineer for GE, I know nuclear power's "dirty little secrets". The 1980's witnessed a virtual worldwide collapse of orders for new nuclear power plants. The previous 10 years (1970-80) had been marked by frequent technical mishaps, serious accidents and huge cost escalations, and rapid decline in public acceptance of nuclear power. Since 1978, 18 European nations have abandoned, voted out or phase out the use of nuclear power.

In the late '80s and '90s, Chernobyl, 3- mile Island, Monju (Japan) reactor, Russia's Ural Mountain nuclear contamination have all led to the "death knell" of the nuclear industry. Recently, the cancer rate of children down-wind of Chernobyl accident is now three times above normal.

In addition, in 1977, a U.S. test missile went off-course and had to be detonated. It contained a Plutonium nuclear power source in its nose cone. When it blew up, this spread Plutonium dust though out the upper atmosphere (80,000-100,00 ft level). We now have plutonium dust above our heads at 80,000 ft. If it comes to earth, each square inch will have the human maximum tolerance.

The current cost for construction of a 1,000 MWE nuclear power reactor has jumped to $9 billion and requires 8 years of permitting and construction. In contrast, a 1,000 MWe 24/7 solar-ydrogen power plant costs $1.5 billion and requires 6 months permitting and 1 year construction. I know since we are constructing such a unit in the San Diego area.

Dr. Warren Reynolds

Recently, several nuclear siting committees and a NEC representative held stakeholder meetings in Alabama and North Carolina. They made a presentation. They were "booed" and told to get out of town that they did not want nuclear in their region.NIMBY !

I invite you to visit the following link and read the article to learn more about natural energy sources:

http://www.mbk.org/Technology/Solar-Hydrogen_Demonstration_Plants

The author is my learned friend, the Hungary-born Prof. Bela Liptak who had worked as department head at C&R, later John Brown, was adjunct professor at Yale University and course director at the Center for Professional Advancement before starting his own consulting firm. Also, published twenty six technical books. These include the Environmental Engineers™ Handbook and four editions of the multi-volume Instrument Engineers' Handbook. Also published a volume titled Testament of Revolution. Presently working on the solar-hydrogen technology, which will replace and solve the problems caused by our present oil based economy. Listed in Who Is Who of American Scientists and Engineers. Received the Control Hall of Fame award in 2001 and the Life Time Achievement award of ISA in 2005.

==

A new study from Harvard University has found that when the entire life-cycle of coal is considered -- extraction, transport, processing, and combustion -- it poses significant public health and environment hazards. Cumulatively, the study estimates these hazards cost the American people roughly US$300 to US$500 billion dollars annually.

Entitled, "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal," the scientific article is set to be published next month in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The research was headed by Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Epstein employed the help of nine other public health and environment experts to conduct the analysis.

As a result of their findings, this panel of experts, conservatively estimates that when all the "externalities" around coal-fired power are weighed, the price of production doubles and triples. This hike, they say, makes "wind, solar, and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive."

Beyond the technological problems of generating capacity and intermittent power production, the biggest argument over large-scale development and implementation of renewable energy sources has been price. Renewables are still considered the expensive, luxury item compared to oil, coal, and natural gas production. However, this argument is beginning to lose weight. Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently reported that falling prices for wind turbines reduced the cost of generating wind energy in the world's best regions to $69 per megawatt-hour last year. This price was almost on par with the $67 per megawatt-hour cost for coal-fired power.

Widely considered a source of cheap energy in the United States, the study finds that accounting for all of the ancillary costs associated with coal-fired power would add an additional 18 cents per kilowatt-hour onto American energy bills. Currently, the average price of residential electricity in the United States is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Epstein contends quite the opposite, stating the economic burden of the health and environmental hazards of coal-fired electricity are carried by American families. "The public cost is far greater than the cost of the coal itself. The impacts of this industry go way beyond just lighting our lights. This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by the American citizens, in their taxes." ==

All interesting information. I was aware of all of the technology, to one degree or another. The Liptak piece is a nice summary of the technology.

However, it does not add up to: " In contrast, a 1,000 MW 24/7 solar-hydrogen power plant costs $1.5 billion and requires 6 months permitting and 1 year construction. I know since we are constructing such a unit in the San Diego area."

Incidentally, I am not aware of anyone participating in this forum who is opposed to the use of renewable energy sources. Many, however, oppose the use of rated capacity of intermittent sources in comparisons with the the rated capacity of reliable sources. While the cost of intermittently available power may approach the cost of reliable power, its value is dramatically lower.

I will be anxious to see the real numbers for the system Dr. Reynolds discussed.

How you can call this a "good review", when it opens with the outright deception of equating a nuclear power plant to a bomb, is beyond me.

(1) The cost of electricity or the cost of human life. Which is more important to you?

(2) Sixty four years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States alone, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak. Do you have anything to explain?

(2) Nuclear power represents the kind of highly centralized, clunky technology of a bygone era. In an age when distributed technologies are undermining hierarchies, decentralizing power and giving rise to networks and open-source economic models, nuclear power seems strangely old-fashioned and obsolete. To a great extent, nuclear power was a Cold War creation. It represented massive concentration of power and reflected the geopolitics of a post-World War II era. Today, however, new technologies are giving people the tools they need to become active participants in an interconnected world. Nuclear power, by contrast, is elite power, controlled by the few. Its resurrection would be a step backward. Don’t you agree?

Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation. Anything wrong with this concept?

All my other claims can be easilty documented if you just look in the Internet and some of the reports about nuclear mishaps and contamination. Check with the NEC and see their reports about the stakeholders meetings in which they were kicked out - NIMBY.

Jon: Are you trying to protect your nuclear job ? I suggest you get out of the nuclear power fiield and re-train into renewable energy before you get laid off. I did. I sugest you read the Ukraine medical reports concerning the increase in cancer rate down-wind of the Chernobly incident. It has taken about 12 years for children to grow up and the cancer rate come to light. In 1987 the cost of 1 Gwe nuclear power plant was $1.1 bn. Today, that price has escalated to $9 bn and 8 years permitting and construction. Check with the NEC concerning today's cost for nuclear power plants. A recent polll in France that was announced on ABC news found that only 32% of the citizens were in favor of nuclear power. Some 63% were in favor of solar energy.

The information about the 24/7 solar-hydrogen power plant will be announced formally in about 2 months in Renewable Energy newsletter. Ignorance is bliss !

The plutonium story is nonsense for a number of reasons: a missile system would not have a "plutonium nuclear power source", rocket range-safety destruction will destroy the engine and fuel tanks, not the payload, and plutonium is not in any case sufficiently deadly that one payload would pose a risk to the entire population of the planet.

I am not against solar electric power, but a realistic assessment of its current capabilities and costs shows that it still has some way to go to be either useful or competitive on cost. I will look forward to an announcement in April, although I have been disappointed in the past with the details of such promises once they become public - for example Archimede in Sicily.

A day may come when utilities and large central generating stations become obsolete. I do not expect to survive to see that day.

Amonix - CPV Technology & Utility Scale Solar With Low Energy Production Costs document title are now building a manufacturing facility in Nevada, scheduled to start up this spring, for their new 500 to 1 fresnel lense concentrating PV systems. Considering that they need only 1/500th of the solar cell area of direct PV, and they are presently achieving 22% efficiency sun to grid power, I'd guess they have a game-changer.

There's another comapny in Toronto, Morgan Solar , also working this plan. "THE SUN SIMBA WILL OPERATE BETWEEN 26% AND 30% EFFICIENCY" Though a bit further away from marketing a product, their strategy has the advantage that their "Light guide" concentrator doesn't concentrate the infra-red in the sunlight, allowing cheaper cooling and / or higher concentration rates, up to 1000 to 1.

Sooner or later, someone is going to make this strategy competitive with coal, then watch.

See Prudent Energy, formerly of Australia and Vancouver BC, Now of Beijing China

The MW-class systems deliver high performance:

a) Availability of greater than 99%. b) Discharge and charge greater than 100,000 times, or 10 years without material deterioration in system efficiencies. c) System round-trip AC to AC efficiencies of 65 - 75%, depending on use and location. d) Theoretical charge/discharge window of 1.7:1 (option of 1:1), allowing off-peak charging for on-peak dispatch at a fraction of the time required by other battery systems – ideal for wind generation applications. e) Cross-mixing of electrolytes does not lead to the contamination of electrolytes. f) Indefinite life of electrolyte (no disposal or contamination issues). g) Once charged, the electrolyte remains fully charged with low self-discharge.

Spent nuclear fuel is a minor challenge on an industrial scale. Underground storage (not "airtight") is a simple way to handle this solid product.

Centralized power generation is actually simpler than distributed generation. I am not a fan of many aspects of corporate structures and legal frameworks, but there s no denying the achievements that large organizations have managed in terms of production and infrastructure and their benefits to society at large.

The missile system was detonated over the Indian Ocean by the missile range officer. This has been documented in a Scientific American, 1967 or 1968 monthly issue. It is on the left hand page and is a one column article. I read it in 1967 or 8. Also, About 8 years ago, Lawrence Livermore Labs took air samples at the 80,000 ft. level and found high levels of Pu dust in their samples. I suggest you contact Lawrence labs for further details.

My earlier report about the high cost of nuclear power is true. A recent article (5/12/2010) at www.powergenworldwide.com states that a nuclear power plant to be built in Florida i.e. 2,200 MWE will now cost $22.5 billion Progress Energy, Inc. is building the nuclear plant and will receive its NRC license in late 2012. The expected nuclear plant completion and start-up is now 2021. This article confirms all that I have said. It is doubtful if it will be built since Progress Energy does not have sufficient funds to build it and investors are pulling out.

Denmark now gets 35% of its electric needs from wind. It has been sending excess electric power into the European power grid. Due to an overload into the grid, Denmark has announced in 2008 it plans to build a hydrogen-fuel cell system termed the "hydrogen valley" to eqaulize the wind power generation.

As I stated before we are in the design phase of a 1,000 MWE solar-hydrogen power plant in S. California.

I regret that I do not believe in your description of the serious nature of any destroyed missile from 1967. Perhaps you have misremembered the details? I very much doubt that any traces of high-altitude plutonium that LL measured could be distinguished from atmospheric bomb test plutonium.

Do you have a link to the article on the Levy County plant costs? I have heard high numbers associated with that particular plant proposal (not as high as you are suggesting before though) and I'd like to understand why that plant is so different.

Your statistics on Danish electricity are wrong. The impression you give of Denmark as a net electricity exporter is also wrong. However the grid problems of variable supply are very real.

As an ex-nuclear research engineer for GE, nuclear power is dead. Normally, any Pu arising from ealier nuclear tests have fallen to the ground or ocean. I can remember when the Chinese tested their nuclear bombs. About 2 weeks later, we went out to the parking lot in the GE parking lot in California and took samples of the dust on the cars. We analyzied the dust in our gamma spectrometer and found Pu and other debris from the atomic explosion. The nuclear "trash" had crossed the Pacific ocean on wind. We could tell what type of nuclear bomb they had detonated by the spectrometric analysis.

Dr. Warren Reynolds I suggest you get a little more scientific knowledge.

I don't see any basis for your assertion that nuclear power is dead. Unless you mean it's dead to you, since you have left the field.

I don't doubt your interesting reminiscence of analyzing dust to infer from the changes which kind of bomb had been recently detonated in the atmosphere. I don't see the relevance to the earlier conversation however, and in particular you have spectacularly failed to make any link to your alleged missile with its alleged plutonium power system.

I suggest you study logic and keep up with current events. Nuclear power is pushing ahead, in the face of stubborn anti-scientific resistance and fearmongering.

It's interesting to me that there have been no follow-up comments here, which might have been stimulated by the Japanese earthquake & tsunami effects on multiple reactor sites in that country over the past ten days or so.

Nuclear technology has its risks - that should now be obvious to all, whether you be pro or con on the matter. However, based on past "disasters" of Chernobyl and TMI, it should also be obvious that in spite of the "unthinkable" happening, loss of life is very limited, even under the worst of circumstances. Carelessness and lack of concern for safety has caused far worse "point source" incidents in conventional industries: refinery explosions, mine explosions, the Bhopal chemical disaster, etc.

Now, for some "fair and balanced" information...

On April 21, 1964, on a failure to reach orbit, there was a reentry and burnup of a US Navy Transit navigation satellite's SNAP-9A RTG (radiothermal generator). The disintegration of this device scattered an estimated 2.2 lbs of Pu-238 in the atmosphere over the southern hemisphere. This material has subsequently landed in the ensuing years, and accounts for 17,000 Curies of the estimated 30,000 Curies of Pu-238 distributed on the earth's surface by human activities, including atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons 1945-1974 (9,000 Curies), overseas nuclear reprocessing plants (est 3,000 Curies), and the Chernobyl disaster ( < 1000 Curies).

{ This material can be found in a combination of government documents published by the USDOE, USGAO, and the NASA Cassini FEIS report (Table 3-8, page 3-44 June, 1995) http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety/feis.pdf }

Regards to all, RWVesel

Yes, the silence on the top article here in the nuclear power category has indeed been surprising. I speculate that anti nuclear club members are making hay elsewhere while they see the sun shining on their cause. My own opinion on Fukushima (so far) is that the reactors did well under horrendous circumstances considering their vintage, some modifications that could have helped were missed, the health impact has been negligible so far and although there will be some lessons to learn, newer reactors would actually have fared even better, whether surviving or failing safe. No doubt I will be accused again of blind optimism.