It's all that proliferating plutonium that is -- in my book -- a serious impediment to going the fast breeder route. Here's what Frank von Hippel wrote in the May 2008 issue of Scientific American in his article entitled 'Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling':

'The Reagan Administration later reversed the Ford-Carter decision on domestic reprocessing, but the US nuclear industry was no longer interested. It too had concluded that reprocessing to make sue of recovered plutonium would not be economically competitive.'

At a presentation I attended at Idaho Falls National Lab, the case was made for a new generator nuclear reactors, but when asked why we simply don't reprocess the fuel we have since it's still relatively rich in radioactive material? The answer was, it's just not economically competitive.

von Hippel instead favors sticking with the current, once-through system that keeps any plutonium effectively out of the hands of terrorists since its bound up with the spent U 238. The only way they could get to it is through -- reprocessing or as the plutonium that results from fast breeder reactors.

He's a nuclear physicist and I think his argument makes sense.
Posted by: Bill Moore

The severe indictment of this article is about biofuels, not thermo-electric power, solar thermal and geothermal being the highest users of water per kwh electrical output. The average corn ethanol fueled ICE vehicle uses 64 gals of water per mile, mostly irrigation water, about 2 gals of water per mile of ethanol processing water. The average soya biodiesel fueled ICE vehicle uses 255 gals of water per mile, using Merson’s numbers. Compare that with the average Electric BEV, powered by Nuclear Energy, using the most water consuming evaporative cooling, uses ¾ gal of water per mile, about 1/100th of the corn ethanol vehicle and 1/400th the biodiesel vehicle. That millions of children will die, to fuel the biofuel vehicles, just adds misery to the madness of biofuels. So use your brain, nuclear is not a significant water user – biofuels are the real criminals. And we’re not counting the pollution caused by agricultural run-off – the ocean dead zones.

It takes 11 acres of corn to fuel the average SUV for one year in the U.S., according to Pimental, enough land to feed 44 people, vs 3000 kwh of electrical energy, worth about $51 of Nuclear Electricity, with average nuclear energy production cost of 1.7 cents per kwh in 2004 in the USA.

And nuclear can use gray or recycled water for cooling, and when near large bodies of water, it doesn’t need to use any significant amount of water for cooling, as it can use the ocean or large lake as a heat sink, as is commonly done. Ontario Hydro’s nuclear plants use the Great Lakes as cooling heat sinks, as an example. With coal it is a much more difficult problem, as you would have to transport millions of tons of coal to the power plant near the ocean vs 100’s of tons of nuclear fuel. And you can use air cooling on a Nuclear Power plant just as is used on large diesel generators, it just adds a ½ cent or so per kwh of electrical production. And nuclear is well suited to CHP, where the heat sink can be peoples homes in Northern areas or Industrial Process or desalination water facilities. Also, especially the newer small reactors, such as the Hyperion, Nuscale and LFTR can use ground cooling effectively. So water use for Nuclear Power is a big NON-ISSUE. Touted by Anti-Nuclear Religious Fanatics of Zero Integrity who could care less about Truth or Honesty, and will quite happily sacrifice a billion lives of the next generation, as long as their religious ideology is forced upon the poor – who will pay most heavily for their fanaticism.

The facts about Cooling Thermal Power Plants

The Definitive Analysis of the Cost of Solar PV, by Professor Borenstein at the University of California, School of Business

My calculations, using Pickens latest $10 billion Wind project data, put cost at $2,000 per kw-pk wind turbine purchase price = $8,000 per kw delivered plus $1,000 per kw ($2,000 to $3,000 per kw for the Mega-sized National Gore or Pickens Plans) delivered for the extra quadruple over-sized power transmission infrastructure, plus $1200 per kw delivered for the backup NG generator plus $800 per kw installation and road construction etc = $11,000 per kwe or kwth. That will increase substantially if major wind installations on the Gore or Pickens Plan level were to proceed since wind uses 15 to 40 times the raw material of nuclear and 30 to 80 times that of Nuclear CHP. You cannot produce that level of material without causing major shortages and rapid commodity price increases. Current Nuclear Construction costs for LWR's are $2,400 to $4,540 per kwe in the USA. Costs for the LWR's or ACANDU's are projected to drop to ~$1500 per kwe when production supply chains are fully established.

Comparative cost of Modern Power Plants, Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas, in the United States

The beginnings of factory Nuclear Reactor construction:

The Hyperion 25 MWe and 70 MWth uranium or thorium hydride reactors are priced at $1400 per kwe and $500 per kwth, you couldn't beat that with anything on the market today including hydro. See:

The Hyperion Nuclear Reactor – what a little R&D can achieve

The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) predicts up to 1203 GWe nuclear power capacity by 2030 or 35% of total world electricity production. Renewables could not even come remotely close to that, and that calculation neglects the important thermal CHP capabilities of the Nuclear Power and also I believe ignores the development of the new small reactors like the Hyperion and Nuscale.

World Nuclear Capacity could reach 1203 GWe by 2030

Posted by: Warren Heath

- The USA built 3 Liquid Metal Reactors (LMRs or LMFBRs), 2 of which suffered unintentional core melts. They also have positive void coefficients, which Chernobyl suffered from. This dangerous condition can be 'fixed' by flattening the core, but then the LMRs can not breed. These facts cause extreme investor caution, not to mention concern among those of us who understand nuclear reactors. It has also caused Japan and France, who had 2 of the most active LMFBR programs in the world, to abandon them.

- Renewables used about 5 times the steel and concrete of a nuclear reactor, largely because they are a more 'diffuse' energy source. Thus, total CO2 calculations should include materials too, and will be less favorable.

- The USA has over 100 reactors, the most of any country, but we did not standardize the design like France, and this caused nuclear energy costs to balloon, as progressing down the "learning curve" and economies of standardize construction and scale could not be realized.

- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) constructed and operated 2 MSRs (ARE 1954 & the MSRE 1965 - 1969). In 1972, President Nixon fired ORNL's Director Dr. Weinberg for advocating MSRs over the Republican's chosen LMFBR. MSRs not only operate at high temperatures, they can not melt down. REF, Pgs 198 - 200, "The First Nuclear Era", by Dr. Alvin Weinberg.

- Nuclear reactors are not 'breeders of plutonium' if they do not use uranium nuclear fuel. Reactors that use thorium, and all can but the MSR was designed for and operates best on thorium, do not "breed" plutonium. They breed uranium-233 and the nonproliferation agent U-232, which Dr. Von Hippel knows quite a bit about.

- Admiral Rickover, his top nuclear engineer Dr. Radkowsky, convinced the Carter Administration to recore the nation's first commercial nuclear reactor (Shippingport) with thorium, and they created the world's first Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR). All reactors can be recored with thorium, which is 3x more plentiful than uranium. USA during 1990s sponsored recoring Russian Reactor (VVER) with thorium and military plutonium using Radkowsky's design, modified for plutonium. It was successful, and Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) & Purdue University have continued that research and work.
Posted by: Bruce Hoglund

Finally people in high positions are catching onto the fact that water and energy are inextricably entwined. That is wonderful. Scientific American just came out with a magazine (Sept 30th) which discusses this situation in some detail. However, the author of the water-electric power article in the Scientific American magazine did not mention the use of photovoltaic or wind generation of electric power.

This presentation does mention photovoltaic and wind generation and I commend the author and others who worked on this project. Simply put, if we want electric power and we want a system that is robust and that does not depend on imported raw materials we have to build photovoltaic and wind generation systems. This is actually not an option, it is a necessity. We do not have the water resources to make electrical power in other ways.

Peter Fynn
Posted by: Peter Fynn

Sure wind is more intermittent and that's where all the Millions of electric vehicles can store extra energy and give it back when needed. It all work together in and EVworld !
Posted by: jim stack

2. do this Cradle to Cradle fashion

3. create a mix of RES as to supply base load

4. connect through a super grid

5. connect super grid with local RES & smart grid (including EV, through V2G)

6. save an amount approx equal to what's lost in the Wall Street crunch by leap frogging coal, clean coal, nuclear, refurbishment of existing power generation. **there's no need for them, when following Bill's suggestion as to re allocate mass production capacity of Ford cs**

7. when in doubt1: think what your children and granchildren would like to inherit from you

8. when in doubt2: http://213.133.109.5/wb/pages/konferenz/wirtschaft/10000-solar-gigawatts.php (which generates water for direct consumption & irrigation, when connected to a sea water pipe line)

Emil Möller

Netherlands
Posted by: Emil Möller

‘…Thirty-nine percent of all water withdrawn from the environment is used to cool thermal electric power plants, equal to the amount used to irrigate agriculture in the United States…’

‘…Renewables used about 5 times the steel and concrete of a nuclear reactor…’

Vintage PWR Nuclear 40 MT per MWe delivered steel, and 190 m^3 concrete per MWe delivered

New Nuclear, like the Advanced High Temperature Reactor use 17 MT per MWe delivered steel, and 80 m^3 concrete per MWe delivered

These numbers come from a University of California, full professor reference on the materials input to wind turbines, a very reputable source and it in turn uses a solid citation, namely: S. Pacca and A. Horvath, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 3194-3200 (2002)

Professor Peterson lists material usage of Wind, Nuclear, Coal & NG

In addition, the Quadruple oversized Long Distance Transmission infrastructure, needed for wind energy will need about an additional 140 MT per MWe delivered in mostly steel but also aluminum for the power transmission line pylons and steel core, aluminum clad wire which is commonly 2.38 pounds per foot of aluminum, .309 pounds per foot steel. This will of course be much higher for any Gore or Mega-Pickens plan to transport huge amounts of plains Wind Energy to Eastern or Western markets. Wind & Desert Solar being an extreme example of Centralized Power Production.

If we are going to replace fossil fuels (90 quads out of 107 quads U.S. consumption), with renewable energy, primarily wind – the necessary expansion of wind energy would require massive development of mines, steel mills, materials factories, transportation of materials, and turbine factories, which in turn would require an enormous increase in the materials required above. Note that most of those materials are produced using fossil fuels at prices of typically 1 to 3 cents per kwh. What is the cost of those high energy input materials, like steel going to be when they must be produced with wind energy at > 12 cents per kwh? A positive feedback loop of price escalations will occur, which will inevitably lead to the collapse of our socio-economic system. The average American uses 11 kw of energy continuously (100 quads per yr / 300 million people / 8800 hrs). With the current cost of wind running $11,000 per kw that’s $121,000 of investment every 20-30 yrs per American, or $484,000 per family of four. And you think the $700 billion bailout was bad @ $9,300 per family of four – try 52 times that – quite simply impossible – unsustainable. The conclusion is apparent to anyone who has honestly analyzed the data – we have only two choices – Nuclear or Coal – pick one.

‘…with fast breeder reactors -- is they generate vast amounts of plutonium,…’

The Facts about Fast Neutron High-Burn (not Breeder) Reactors

The Integral Fast Reactor

‘…http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1552 This is why we don't need nuclear power plants. Posted by: John Hurt: Why can't Johnny read? …’

John Hurt, your dishonest article, can be blown away by one picture, that compares the growth in the USA of all non-combustable energy sources, renewables look absolutely pathetic, compared with Nuclear, in spite of the Fossil Fuel Lobby financed boycott of Nuclear Technology over the past 25 years.

Graph of Renewables vs Nuclear & Hydro for the U.S. Energy Production from 1949 to 2006

The EIA 2007 Energy Outlook predicts Wind Energy in the USA to be 48.3 TW-hrs in 2010 vs 4392 total Electricity Production, 50.9 in 2015 vs 4721 total, 51.3 in 2020 vs 5037 total, 51.5 in 2025 vs 5395 total and 51.8 TW-hrs in 2030 vs 5797 TW-hrs total production. That is, the #1 new renewable, will not even meet 10% of the GROWTH in USA electrical energy production – NEVER MIND its negligible contribution to Total Energy Consumption – most particularly the highly unreliable, foreign debt increasing, terrorist funding, GHG emitting, fossil fuel imports.

EIA Energy Outlook 2008

Posted by: Warren Heath

John Hurt, Geothermal is a long, slow and hard road to travel, judging by Iceland – the Geothermal Capital of the World – only getting 19% of its electricity from Geothermal, the rest from much more easy Hydro, in spite of the great advantage of CHP in a year round cold nation. Alaska should be Geothermal Capital of the USA, with the enormous advantage of geothermal CHP, and yet only gets a piddly 400 kw from Geothermal with another 20 MW planned. You say pump fresh water – from where? – into underground drill holes – returns as steam – condensed and recycled. Yeah, that’s what all highest water usage Thermal Power plants that use evaporative cooling do – problem is to dissipate the heat – basic thermodynamics – you need to evaporate water or send the heat to a large heat sink like a large body of water. Geothermal is the least efficient at that process, and requires more water than Nuclear Power Plants – again – its basic thermodynamics. The technology for Geothermal power is very simple minded, and well established, and drilling holes in the Earth as cheaply as possible – is well developed for the Mining Industry, Tunneling Contractors, Petroleum and NG industries. If it was as profitable as you claim, especially with considerable Renewable Energy subsidies, it would be a large power producer instead of being absolutely insignificant.

As for subsidies, Charles Barton will educate you on the truth about Nuclear Subsidies – the lowest of any major energy technology.

Nuclear is not subsidized and actually like France Finances the Government

More on the Trivial Financial Support of Nuclear Power from the US Government

‘‘…the civilian nuclear industry has in fact subsidized the Federal Government, and the net value of that subsidy is far greater than the value of all of the benefits that the civilian power industry has received through the Federal Government. If we subtract the $5.8 of R & D expenditures on Light Water Reactors paid by the Federal Government, we find that the Civilian Power Reactor Industry has given the government a net subsidy of $8.2 Billion. In addition unlike other energy technologies including renewables, the civilian nuclear power industry pays 100% of its tax obligations.…’’

John, don’t you ever stop to think as to why big Oil Companies such as British Petroleum, Shell and Chevron are inundating the media and on their websites about their financial support of Wind, Hydrogen, Solar and Biofuels, but no mention of Methanol, Electric Vehicles or Nuclear Power? It’s called Bait and Switch, a Sucker Trap as Old as the Hills, focus the Attention of Gullible Fools on Unrealistic Technologies that won’t put a dent in the World’s Fossil Fuel Consumption – it’s a Scam that just keeps working so well for them, and we pay pay the price.

And if you think Mr. Wind & Fossil Fuel himself – T.Bone Pickens has your interests at heart – check out his Proposition 10 Rip-Off Scam:

Pickens Scam: 10 to 50 G’s subsidy for NG vehicles, maybe max 4 G’s for some PHEV’s

More on Pickens thieving Scam, Methanol Series HEV’s have quadruple the efficiency of his NG vehicles

As a matter of fact, if the average American got all of his electricity over his lifetime from current Nuclear Power Plants, his total share of waste would fit into one Coke can, compare that with your alternative Coal power – same person would produce 68.5 tons of solid radioactive waste!. You offer no alternative to Nuclear except Coal – and a pretend renewable fantasy. It is proven that the US could have and can replace Coal with Nuclear within 30 yrs or less – France did it already with little effort. Germany and Denmark went on a super extreme effort, with unf’ing believable subsidies of up to $0.78 per kwh guaranteed for 20 yrs – incredible. They have desperately tried to replace fossil fuels and nuclear for 20 yrs now and failed absolutely miserably. Hey John, I’ll quite happily bury my Coke can under my trailer if you bury YOUR 69 TONS OF COAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE at your home. And I’m giving you a break, you don’t have to breath or bury the 100’s of tons of smokestack emissions that YOUR COAL PLANTS generate!

Posted by: Warren Heath