To even mention “The China Syndrome” seriously in a discussion of nuclear power reveals the writer’s ignorance on the subject. Even in a worst-case scenario like Chernobyl, this fictitious phenomenon never happened, yet it has been used for nearly three decades to block the construction of new plants in the U.S.

The Chernobyl meltdown need never have happened, either, if operators had followed established safety rules. Under the direction of a rogue manager, they overrode safety limits to cause the disaster. Fortunately, nuclear plants designed and built in the last 20 years, or so, have most manual control taken away from the operators, preventing such events from ever happening again.

In view of the current hysteria about carbon dioxide, it makes sense to build more nuclear generating capacity. Uranium is ubiquitous in the Earth’s crust. Some estimates put our extraction of uranium to-date at less than 2% of what may be easily available through surface mining. Much of the so-called “spent fuel” can be reprocessed and concentrated, since only 5% of the energy in the rods has been used. It’s tantamount to a crime to warehouse these fuel rods in water pools around the country, since they continue to decay without producing a single kilowatt-hour of energy.

Finally, the idiotic policies of the Federal government since Clinton/Gore and the government of California regarding nuclear power need to be reversed. The French are the beneficiaries of U.S. nuclear research and power plant development. It’s about time we enjoyed some of those benefits, too. Furthermore, there is the promise of advanced reactor technologies that would consume 100% of the radioactive material in the fuel, leaving inert residue, but we can’t get there as long as the greenies are actively suppressing research and development.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl come readily to mind. Wasn’t one operated by free enterprise and one by a government?

1) we embrace nuclear power, or
2) we live in a cave and dig in the dirt with a stick.

It’s tedious.

There are a gazillion simple modifications to our behaviors that can be made that will save energy (electricity and combustible fuels) not to mention small changes in “consumer products” and packaging (think of how much plastic and cardboard is used to encase a $.99 comb, how much more fuel it requires to transport the freakin’ packaging that goes into the garbage!) The first step should be to reduce demand, not simply continue to feed the beast. I don’t see why being sensible and frugal should be seen as an assault on our “quality of life”. We can’t build our way out of inefficiency.

I will never even consider the possibility of accepting nuclear power generation without a serious discussion of conservation and efficiency FIRST.

And as for measuring the security of any facility by its proximity to a military base, thats’ a good one. How far is NYC or the Pentagon from a military installation? Or what about that other little incident, what was that….. oh yeah, Pearl Harbor. Seems like there were a few military bases in the area, did that guaranty safety?

Nukes? Nukes? We don’t need no stinkin’ nukes.

Thanks for the post, Jo.

And yes, Guardian, Jeremy moved on, but “rolled”? Groan.

EDITOR NOTE–Jeremy would not be offended. Only with great admiration did the inside joke creep in.

My only point about nuclear in Europe is that they seem to have solved the “safety” side of the equation. There is, most definitely, the inherent problems that center around subsidies, operating costs and spent fuel disposal. I think it goes without question that we should all fight to keep from being the “start” of someone else’s power grid.

I still stand behind the position that we simply can’t have it ALL!

Hydro generation still seems to be the cheapest, cleanest and most efficient way to generate power. If that means we have to wave goodbye to some salmon, so be it.

And PLEASE don’t ever associate me with any level of socialism! You would be far more accurate to refer to me as an anarchist!

Just what do ya’ll think would happen when those “sneaky terrosist types” blow up the Lower Granite Dam??

So let’s talk terrorism! Terrorists have been caught with maps of nuclear power plants. While American nuclear plants are “safer” than Chernobyl, a terrorist strike would create the same huge type of disaster in Idaho, and beyond. That is the bottom line dead end road of nuclear power. The gamble is too large. Even from a National Security perspective, you don’t want to cluster your energy supply, as a target for your enemy.

EDITOR NOTE–Rickards quoted a Washington Post story in March 2005 which cited a classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences. The report challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.

The report concluded the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools and ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The Bush administration has long defended the safety of the pools, and the nuclear industry has warned that moving large amounts of fuel to dry storage would be unnecessary and very expensive.

Most of the people in Idaho get their power from Idaho Power. If Idaho Power needed power generated by the Payette, or Owyhee nukes, for peaking, base load, or whatever reason, they would be listed in their Integrated Resource Plan. I suggest page 5 of the document that can be found at: http://www.idahopower.com/energycenter/irp/2006/2006IRPFinal.htm

The first time nuclear shows up in Idaho Power’s plans is in 2023, from a plant located at the Idaho National Laboratory near Arco.

The irony is that, by bringing more people to the state thus increasing electricity demand, and by using water that would otherwise contribute to power generated at Idaho Power’s Hells Canyon complex, the Owyhee and Payette nukes will likely result in higher cost, less reliable electricity than would be the case if they are not built.