Costa

Solving the Energy Problem Without Nuclear

Those interested in knowing more about the economics of nuclear power should take the time to visit the rmi website listed in the article above. It documents how profoundly uneconomic nuclear power is in both reducing foreighn energy dependency and mitigating the effects of global warming. For example, the current posterchild of the nuclear industry (the new reactor being built in Finland by a top French nuclear company) is running 2 years behind schedule after 28 months of construction and $2 billion dollars over budget. Instead of building nuclear reactors which Lovins compares to builing cathedrals (slow to build and very expensive) we should be investing in technology and equipment that is small scale and accessible (think PC's instead of mainframes). These would include firmed wind power and solar power with storage. These types of technologies and ofcourse increased efficieny, offer far quicker and cheaper solutions that nuclear power. For these reasons (greatly expanded on in the rmi website) the safety of nuclear power becomes irrelevant.

Thorium:
Thorium can not be used as a direct replacement for uranium or plutonium in current nuclear reactors. It does not produce as self-sustaining chain reaction and requires an external source of neutrons to maintain a reaction. To the best of my knowledge there is currently a single thorium reactor being built in India, but this is experimental. The technology is therefore unproven and practical large scale application is therefore ,I beleive, too far off to help with our current pressing needs. In any case the economics are likely to be comparable to traditional nulclear power.

Fusion
The ITER (international thermonuclear experimental reactor) currently being built in France is not slated for completion until after 2015. Even if it demonstrates that the technology is successful it will produce no power- it is a proof of technology demonstrator. Another generation of fusion reactors would then need to designed and built. Any way you look at it, even if it proves successful, fusion is still far off.

Cars:
Lovins has written a peer reviewed book titled "Winning the Oil Endgame" which explains how the US ,and the whole world for that matter, can move away from its' addiction to oil by 2040:- with no new taxes, no new federal laws and lead by business for profit. It sounds too good to be true, but it makes a lot of sense. In fact aspects of it are already being implemented by the auto industry and even by some of the provincial governments of Canada (feebates).

My best bet:
Use what we have at hand, that we know works now. Spend some of the billions on efficiency improvements and not on nuclear plants. This could include anything from incentives for the installation of CHP(combined heat and power) plants in major buildings and industrial plants to the support for the double glazing and insulating of buildings during renovations.
Do more research on improving concentrted solar thermal (CST)storage. CST plants are already being built in the deserts of the south west U.S. (eg California, Nevada), Spain and Australia.

These options offer far better solution per dollar spent than nuclear.