Keep advancing nuclear power in Wisconsin

[Right Lane Cruiser]

Although spent fuel is a concern, it is being stored safely at existing plants. And France and Japan are recycling spent fuel.

Kurtis Alexander - The Wisconsin State Journal - May 11, 2009

Good news, indeed! --Ed.

Momentum is building to produce more carbon-free nuclear energy in Wisconsin.

At long last, the Legislature is close to relaxing an outdated moratorium on construction of nuclear power plants in the state. And just last week, the state's flagship university won $5 million in federal grants to help develop the cleaner and more efficient nuclear plants of the future.

It's all great news for Wisconsin, which now is forced to import the bulk of its energy. Yet success will rely on the public and more lawmakers opening their minds to this improving and safer technology.

UW-Madison announced last week that the U.S. Department of Energy has granted it three years of money for 10 studies. UW won more grants than any other college or university.

The Madison campus, which is home to a small nuclear research reactor, will study ways to make next-generation nuclear plants more efficient by allowing higher temperature operation. Two of the grants will focus on computer modeling of nuclear reactor behavior.

The campus also will study nuclear fuels and fuel coatings, waste separation technology and... [Read More]

[juglo-j]

Sorry, but I still think nuclear is a no-no! How is it that something that was deemed so very unsafe now suddenly safe and clean?

[Right Lane Cruiser]

Check out the newer tech currently being used in France. Much more efficient, safer, and cleaner because the fuel can recycled until the waste level is much lower than what is produced by current US plants.

[Earthling]

No CO2, zero.

Harry

[Radio_tec]

It's CO2 zero only if you ignore the mining, transporting enrichment and cooling in storage tanks of spent fuel rods.

Enrichment is done in the United States using gaseous diffusion. There's only one facility that does this and it is very energy intensive. It is located in Paducah, KY and where a rathter substantial amount of their electricity is supplied by coal fired plants.

Nuclear power couldn't exist without fossil fuels and the processes to make the fuel and store the spend fuel rods emits a substantial amount of CO2. Does it emit as much CO2 as coal fired plants? Most assuradly not but it is anything but carbon free.

[juglo-j]

Much the same way that Ethanol is a cleaner source (not)! It takes petrochemicals to grow the corn and a huge tractor to till the soil, plant the seeds, harvest the corn, well you get the idea! What is the benefit? Plus it eats o-rings and gaskets.

[Right Lane Cruiser]

While energy intensive, enrichment can certainly be accomplished with power from a nuclear plant.

I'd also like to point out that modern power plant designs don't require nearly as much refinement of fuel.

[MT bucket]

Nuclear is not without risks, but so is continuing on the way we are. I am for it, go cheeseheads!

[Radio_tec]

There is only one enrichment facility in the United States and it is located in Paducah, KY. Most of the electricity is generated from coal. In theory you could power a gaseous diffusion enrichment facility using a nuclear reactor but at a cost of 10 billiion dollars to construct it is the most expensive way to generate electricity on the planet. You would be adding an additional expenst to a way of generating electricity that is already very expensive.

Nuclear power has a self limiting future for three important reasons.

The risk of accidents are so high that Wall Street won't finance them. Who wants to fund a 10 million dollar asset that could turn into a 2 Billion dollar liability overnight.

They also take a long time to build. It would not be unusual for 10 years to lapse between initial planning and final construction. So coal remains as the power source.

Nuclear reactors generate tremendous amounts of heat. In fact they generate so much heat that they need prodigous amounts of water to keep their reactor cores cool enough to operate. If there's a water shortage due to lack of rain then the reactor has to shutdown. This happened last year, if I remember correctly, with two reactors in the southeastern United States where there was s severe droubt. We are likely to see more droughts in the future and this is a major impediment to nuclear power.

[Right Lane Cruiser]

You are still focusing on the old style power plant in operation here in the States.

Yes, power plants are expensive to construct but if we decide as a nation to do this, the route France took is viable and quite an improvement over what we have now.

By the way, breeder reactors are not nearly as hot in operation.