<New Website: Upper Green SideThe Oil Drum: LocalGoldman Likes Wind. The Kennedys and DoD Don't?>

16 comments on Indian Point Nuclear or LNG

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Damek on June 10, 2006 - 12:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I think, if we're definitely going to be building new facilities one way or the other, I'd rather have nuclear.  From what I understand, with modern plants safety is a much smaller concern.  For example, pebble bed reactors don't use water, eliminating a complex steam management system.

Nuke power is probably also cheaper in the long term. Oil, LNG, and NG prices will probably fluctuate like crazy. Uranium lasts longer and stronger and doesn't require such frequent transport unlike fossil fuels.  Plus modern plants can also reprocess and reuse spent fuel, further extending the life of already mined materials.

Not to mention getting away from the petrochemical industry... to another energy industry, sure, but...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sheldon H on June 10, 2006 - 6:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Given LNG or nuclear, I take LNG any day. They can be handled offshore. The lingering effects of a problem are short term versus the potential locally catastrophic effects of nuclear.

(Remember war and terrorism in nuclear risks as well, not just plant safety performance. The safety performance of the new designs has not in practice been validated by the way and many reports raise safety issues with the new designs like lack of containment for some, graphite pebble fire hazards in case of pebble bed, etc. etc. They appear to solve the meltdown problems but as with many man made complex systems, new issues have this nagging habit of emerging when operational experience is gained.)

Don't forget the waste handling issues, even in the case of breeders and reprocessing. For instance, Sellafield in the U.K and La Hague in France are among the biggest sources anthropogenic radioactive pollution in Europe. Only uranium mining approaches their pollution.

It is unlikely that nuclear will be cheaper than the myriad renewables and efficient distributed cogeneration use of natural gas in the near future assuming LNG goes ahead when all the post operational costs and effects are accounted for.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Starship Trooper on June 12, 2006 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There are a mere 39 additional LNG terminals on the books in addition to the 4 that currently exist.  With limited shipbuilding of oil tankers and much of the energy shipbuilding being devoted LNG, somebody knows something about the oil and gas future for the US.

I would not call it good.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.