NYT Column: Nuclear Power Best Fit to Combat Climate Change

An article in the New York Times today (August 20) by Eduardo Porter titled “Coming Full Circle in Energy, to Nuclear” looks at the critical need to finding a viable energy source which will be able to replace the enormous amount of energy that is currently being produced primarily by natural gas and coal.

With the aftereffects of the 2011 Fukushima disaster still making news around the globe, many of those most concerned about climate catastrophe are seriously promoting nuclear fission as the most effective way to meet the energy demands of an ever modernizing world while combating climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

Porter writes:

The United States Energy Information Administration forecasts that global energy consumption will grow 56 percent between now and 2040. Almost 80 percent of that energy demand will be satisfied by fossil fuels. Under this assumption, carbon emissions would rise to 45 billion tons a year in 2040, from 32 billion in 2011, and the world would blow past its carbon ceiling in fewer than 25 years.

An analysis of power generation in 21 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency projected that even if the world were to impose a tax of $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, neither wind nor solar could outcompete gas and coal.

A new generation of nuclear power, by contrast, is potentially the cheapest energy source of all.

The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt/hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates, against $70 to $80 for coal-fueled power. Wind-powered electricity would cost from $60 to $90, but there are limits to how much it can be scaled up. A megawatt/hour of solar power still costs in the hundreds.

The study concluded that nuclear power would prove even more competitive in Asia and Europe.

Most mainstream analyses I have seen do not see a significant role for renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) in reducing the amount carbon produced in the near to medium term. Porter states that currently only 6 percent of US energy comes from renewables — most of which is hydroelectric plants. Of course most mainstream projections do not figure in the possibility of E-Cat or similar LENR technology which, I believe, could change these projections significantly.

I expect that those who are proposing ‘new nuclear’ as the best solution are fully aware how concerned many people are about its safety risks. My understanding is that new designs are far safer than some of the earlier plants — but even then, there are risks when unforseen catastrophes like the Japanese Tsunami can cause such havoc with backup safety plans. My hope is that many of those who are now promoting nuclear as the best of a bad set of energy choices will enthusiastically back LENR when it is demonstrated to be ready both technologically and commercially to step in and take up some of the load.

  • AlainCo

    Off-topic, about an old article (comments closed) on Climeon company.
    It seems they C3 technology is describes
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1195-Climeon-Claims-New-Low-Temperature-Heat-to-Electricity-Process-Applies-for-Patent&p=5731&viewfull=1#post5731

    unlike some buzz saying it was thermoionic, it is a smart rankine cycle using solvent and phase changing dissolved CO2, allowing good efficiency around 90C.

    “Through a proprietary patent pending technology, the company developed the facility provide efficient electricity from the waste water from the process, or from other sources with a temperature of only about 90 degrees Celsius. According to the company the technology can provide significantly more electricity than current technologies for conversion of lågtemperaturvatten. Technology; C3 Carbon Cycle Carrier, a absorbtionsmotor, means that carbon dioxide and solvent is pumped in a closed system, and is driven by heat energy from outside. The equipment is a thermodynamic cycle – with some analogies to a heat pump. When the solvent is heated to about 90 degrees to release carbon dioxide gas, which drives a turbine.Meanwhile utilized heat of the liquid, via a heat exchanger. “

  • Job001

    Looking at the long progress of history, the best periods came from rising personal productivity and a decline in extractive process. After the “Black plague” labor was in short supply and land resources became cheap. Productivity went back to people willing to work the land for themselves.
    Whatever supports people at the local level appears wise vs big government, big money, big cartels, big dictators, big theology, and big corporate extraction practices.
    Unfortunately, utilities require regulation(now neutered) to produce effectively and they inevitably create high external costs including monopoly prices, war, waste, dismantling, and site cleanup. It appears many people rightfully don’t trust the process of “BIG”. Little LENR – that would be excellent.

  • Roger Bird

    And since climate change cannot be eliminated anyway, no matter what energy source we use, then the need to re-emphasize nuclear is completely unnecessary and stupid. However, if we want to talk about cost and pollution, why would we choose nuclear? I would think that gas or solar would be much better.

    It is hubris to think that we have much of an effect on the climate. I am way more concerned about the neurologically damage teens that my wife works with than I am about some theoretical AGW.

  • georgehants

    It of course must be said that a open demonstration by Mr. Rossi of any of his devices that would conclusively confirm his effect, would make all of this discussion of hot fusion academic and pointless.
    I mean a demonstration of the effect not a fully working, reliable, ultra safe, marketable product.
    Every delay for whatever reason is costing lives and stopping it’s possible use in replacing conventional power sources.
    That said there is enough clear Evidence now, for science to have moved into the subject wholesale.

  • dzejk
  • Interested

    I’m amazed the article didn’t mention Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), and that none of the replies brought it up either.

    We have enough cheap thorium to power the world’s economy for hundreds of thousands of years.
    It’s inherently safe, produces very little waste, and the waste it does produce is relatively non-toxic and radioactively short-lived (300 years instead of 24,000).
    We can even ‘burn up’ transuranic wastes like plutonium, neptunium, americium, and curium as part of the cycle of the LFTR – thus eliminating the ever-increasing waste disposal problem we have from uranium/plutonium reactors.

    By all means let’s use LENR if at all possible, since it de-centralises the energy supply and therefore tends to protect us from political and economic control.
    But touting the dangers of uranium as an excuse not to have nuclear power completely ignores the viable and very attractive alternative we have in thorium.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Agreed. Also include Dense Plasma Fusion. It’s good to figure these things out, even if we don’t immediately use them.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Thorium could possibly be used in distributed power systems. While there is plenty of thorium, not much is currently mined and processed.

        Stock up now and avoid the rush. :>)
        http://compare.ebay.com/like/390393453119?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

        • Roger Bird

          Thorium oxide is not thorium, but still, $96.36 per ounce, not counting shipping. I don’t understand why this is allowed. I understand that alpha particles are not deadly externally, but still. And why the freak would anyone want that stuff in their house? What is the purpose? Despite my trying to dampen the hysteria around, I am not reckless and stupid. Please explain to me why anyone would want 2 ounces of thorium oxide.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            “And why the freak would anyone want that stuff in their house?”

            I keep it in a “Lead Pig”, not in my house.

            “Please explain to me why anyone would want 2 ounces of thorium oxide.”

            As I said, I’m just trying to avoid the rush. Other than that, I’m under NDA. :>)

            http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lead-Pig-Radioactive-Materials-Storage-Container-with-Screw-top-Casing-/221252210126?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3383a8cdce

            • Roger Bird

              Iggy, you are the Supreme Goose of the Internet World. (:->) And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

            • iggy dalrymple

              My thorium dioxide arrived today. I was a little disappointed it was a fine powder. One of the main ways you can be injured by thorium is by inhaling the dust. Is there a way you can treat the powder to make it granular?

    • GreenWin

      Thorium has been a part of the commercial and weapons fuel cycle since 1954. Some 800 tons of thorium was separated into U-233 (1500kg) for use in weapons and research reactors between 1954 and 1970. DOE spent billions on the thorium-U-233 fuel cycle up to 1977 at Elk River Reactor in Minnesota, the Molten Salt Reactor at ORNL, and the Light Water Breeder Reactor at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

      Thorium itself is more radioactive than uranium. Surface dose rate from a 55 gal drum of thorium oxide is 60mR/hr, 13X that of uranium. The Th-U cycle invariably produces some U-232, which decays to Tl-208, which issues a 2.6 MeV gamma decay mode, making handling more dangerous.

      Thorium was first used commercially at Indian Point Unit 1 in 1962, but the successful conversion rate was <1% – a financial disaster for the operator, and soon abandoned.

      The molten salt concept is unproven but clearly safer than pelletized fuels. Since LENR produces no measurable radiation and is also commercially unproven, both should be publicly funded R&D. http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html#downsides

  • Rob Lewis

    James Howard Kunstler, of “Long Emergency” fame, has been saying for a decade or more that, love it or hate it, nuclear is probably the only option in the medium term if we want to keep the lights on. If our choices were “nukes or nothing”, is there any doubt we’d choose nukes? And hey, it’ll be too cheap to meter!

    Despite the almost unthinkable damage potential in the event of a major accident, we should remember that coal power plants kill many times more people than nuclear ones ever have.

    I would also note that solar and wind capacity has been growing much, much faster than the “experts” predicted, so who knows?

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    NYT Column: Nuclear Power Best Fit to Combat Climate Change

    I agree, until LENR or some other superior, cleaner, and cheaper technology is perfected and commercially available.

  • Sanjeev

    In other news, world moves on:
    Germany Breaks Monthly Solar Generation Record (5.1 TWh in one month), 6.5 Times More Than US Best

    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/19/germany-breaks-monthly-solar-generation-record/

    Germany is comparatively a frozen land compared to the US, which is a sunny place mostly. The inclination to still continue with coal, gas and fission is surely political and greed based, with fox news teaching US citizens that sun doesn’t shine much in US.

    Imagine the rest of the world moving on to cleaner and unlimited sources of energy like solar and lenr, continuously growing prosperous. While US hangs on in the smoke and radiation with a handful of corporations and politicians getting ultrasuper rich. With their finger always on the red button, such a nation will quickly become a threat to the rest of the world.

    Of course, this can be changed, if the US population takes control in their hands. IMHO, it is less likely, but the smart people over there might respond differently, like by walking off the land and settling in other places, like Australia or NZ.

    • Sanjeev

      In fact solar is so successful in Germany that the big fossil fuel guys are planning to pack up and leave.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/08/19/german-utility-revolts-against-renewable-energy-threatens-to-relocate-in-turkey/?ss=business:energy

      Most of the solar in Germany is distributed, not in the hands of a few mega-billionaires, which is why we see the growth. US corps want fission only because they can control it in a monopolistic way, milking their profits as much as they want. The reason is obviously not technology or cost.

      Unfortunately Rossi subscribes to this model (at least at present). He wants to sell the tech only to energy producers and that too in complete secrecy. The utility cos will start producing dirt cheap lenr energy and can still bill you as much as they want, increasing their profits 100x. With Rossi’s business approach, you will never know if the power in your home is coming from cheap lenr.

      If you study the solar story in some depth, you will get an idea about whats going to happen in future when lenr starts to shine in horizon.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        That’s a left-handed complement. Companies and productive individuals have been leaving socialist Europe for decades.

        • Gerald

          True, but Germany isn’t doing that bad. Go right wing America?

          Let’s be honenest we all are under the spell of kapitalisem, and with computers these days the reactions are to quick for the system leaving it blown up.

          Lern will come if it is good enough for the market.

      • fortyniner

        Excellent analysis Sanzeev. It is as you say everything to do with the profits created by nuclear fission technology, and almost nothing to do with the common good. Only in the fictitious and unhinged reality created by the corporate owned MSM could new nuclear plants be even considered as an option while the Fukushima disaster escalates almost daily.

        • fortyniner

          Sorry ‘Sanzeev’! Sanjeev of course.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Yeah, but what if nukes were safer, simpler, and cheaper than LENR, solar, wind, or you name it? Never say never. Don’t go religious on energy tech. “Unhinged Reality” may be close to becoming hinged. Nukes, now the grid’s best friend, may usher in its demise.

        • GreenWin

          THIS is a rather dramatic shift in MSM; Time Magazine of the Time Warner empire has finally published the real story on Fukushima:

          The News From Fukushima Just Gets Worse, and the Japanese Public Wants Answers

          http://world.time.com/2013/08/22/the-news-from-fukushima-just-gets-worse-and-the-japanese-public-wants-answers/#ixzz2coivcujU

      • GreenWin

        sanjeev,

        it seems presumptuous to state that Rossi’s business approach is one way or another. At this point it seems an orderly prototype to product approach is under way. This does not rule out domestic or very small CHP-type devices.

        What is plausible is the proof of industrial sized E-Cat’s success will help address domestic certification/liability issues in future. Rossi, like the Wright Brothers, cannot afford to “give away” his technology as he is self-funded and relies on product success for his livelihood.

    • Sanjeev
  • GreenWin

    The Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees with the OECD and conclusions that new nuclear fission is the cheapest form of energy. IF the nuke power operators actually had to pay the real costs of the fuel cycle and plant operations, the cost per kWh would be up 11 cents HIGHER. Nuclear power produces the illusion of cheap energy due to subsidies and breaks on insurance costs as Robyn notes below.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

    • fortyniner
      • GreenWin

        Yes. It will cost ratepayers in Southern Cali, $3billion to shut San Onofre down. IF LENR were to burst onto scene this industry would leave massive stranded asset costs to taxpayers. Same with fossil industry. “Junk accounting…” an apt phrase.

        • fortyniner

          It’s probably a fair bet that even if it’s allowed to run its course, the nuclear industry would find ways to pass much of its decommissioning and waste processing costs on to the taxpayers of the countries concerned. The simplest method is simply to hive off power stations reaching the ends of their lives as freestanding businesses then let them go bankrupt, so the state has to pick up the liabilities (no option – the alternative is to sit back and watch as meltdown or loss of confinement occurs).

          • AlainCo

            normally an independent fund is ther to pay, and as far as I’ve read it is not much of the cost of electricity. the problem is that the computation is based on life of 40years and usual price of electricity… with LENR the powerplant will have to be decommissioned before their planned end, and the electricity won’t be expensive enough to pay for most of the bill…
            On the othert side, LENr may help to clean all…

            If the fund don’t cover the cost of decommissioning all, the company will get bankrupt and government will pay the cleaning…
            Someone have to pay, and dead don’t pay.

  • sophareth camsonne

    The mainstream is beleived a standard for present society.
    But fundamentally it is not .

  • Roger Bird
    • BroKeeper

      Yes the Wright brothers attempted to sell their airplane to the French. Although Baroness Raymonde de la Roche of France was the first woman to fly, the first American female to fly was Ivonette Wright Miller at age of 15 (1911) flew with her uncle Orville.

      I bring this up because when I was 14 years old while collecting money three houses from where I lived for the local newspaper in Kettering (another famous inventor). Mrs. Miller invited me to come inside. She pointed toward the fireplace where a large wooden propeller was fixed to the wall over the mantle. It was one of the first propellers made by her uncles. I’ll never forget the impression it made on me knowing how the world had changed because of these two men.

      I have been fixated by inventions and inventors ever since. Another inventor, Andrea Rossi, could well be the next inventor to have at least an equal impact on the world. Perhaps the beginning of the first LENR powered biplane (and greater).

      Oh, by-the-way anytime you pop a can of Coca-Cola (or Budweiser); remember the inventor Ermal Cleon Fraze who also lived on my paper route three houses in another direction.

      These inventors defied the negative paradigms set by others in their fields. So bottoms-up Andrea and shoot for the sky.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwCKU5qZbWU

      • Roger Bird

        Brokeeper, I was touched by your comment. Thank you for it. That was extremely sweet. So, you met the first child to ever fly. I am impressed.

        • BroKeeper

          Thanks Roger. Yes, this is my only claim to fame. :).

          Correction: I should have included above “first American child” vs., female. An older sibling and a cousin visiting were first to climb into the passenger seat before her. I say American child because Orville had taken up a little girl while in France. In the link above Ivonette doesn’t look much older than what I remember as a very gracious lady with all white hair. It must have been an older interview or she had aged very gracefully.

          Here is the link to Ivonette’s very interesting story/interview on her flight and family remembrances at what is now known as Wright-Patterson AFB: THE WRIGHTS’ TIME TO FLY: THE FAMILY REMEMBERS HUFFMAN PRAIRIE

          http://www.libraries.wright.edu/special/collection_guides/guide…/ms216.pdf‎

          • BroKeeper

            Hmmmm…. try Google’ing “Ivonette Wright Miller”. It should be the first selection with a pdf file.

    • AlainCo

      I’ve added that huge quote to the story
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1008-Wright-Brother-story-It-remind-me-something

      Really the parallels with Wright Brothers are amazing…
      I have similar impression while watching a small historical chronicle on economics on french BFM Business “on redecouvre la lune” (a french expression about when people discover an old evident fact as breaking news).
      It seems that , like what Nassim Nicholas taleb explain in “History Being written by the Losers” is really true… our history is a fairy tale that hide permanent failure of consensus and thus academics.

      • GreenWin

        Doubtful the losers will rewrite history provided the realignment of geopolitics also changes the MSM influence. This means we will see a return to a time when real journalists were unafraid to report alternative views on news.

        I can think of little more healthy (aside homeopathy perhaps) than a new breed of journalists who in tradition of Woodward, Bernstein and fearless publishers, uncovered the truth of Watergate and subsequent coverups.

        Should any such renaissance take place in Japan, we will see the fall of the “nuclear village” that has endangered the planet with its collusion.

  • roseland67

    “Of course most mainstream projections do not figure in the possibility of E-Cat or similar LENR technology which, I believe, could change these projections significantly”.

    Because most mainstream projections have the same concerns I do:

    If LENR exists as stated, if it can be scaled, if it is predictable, if it is safe, if it is reliable.

    Despite all we see and hear daily, none of us KNOW any of the above.

    • AlainCo

      LENR exist, it is proven, much more than many doomer prediction stated as consensus today.
      LENR can be usefull and scaled, there is infinitesimal risk it is not.
      For the rest you are right, there are blackswan risk about safety and reliability that may require few more years of engineering, or delay transition.

      Imagining that solar or wind energy can be scaled more easily is just consensual blindness.

      today we don’t have enough neodymium to power the planet, and it pollute maybe more than uranium and coal together.

      solar PV like wind turbine face many problem of scalability, risks discovery, pollution… those problem are denied because it is not politically correct.
      they are much more complex and risky than LENR appear.
      By comparison LENR is clean and old-fashioned technology, with much less environmental impact.

  • Bob T.

    A bit off topic but..

    Can someone update me about NI Week and if there were any LENR related presentations?

    Was there any reporting at all about NI Week and LENR/Cold Fusion?

    Sterling Allen wrote :
    “”Wait until NI-Week in August”, has been Defkalion’s standard reply to most media that has contacted them, which is when they plan to be demonstrating a module in operation for the public, along with giving a scientific presentation about their technology.”

    I know Defkalion did a video demo at ICCF18 and I thought was to make a presentation at NI Week. But I have heard nothing.

    I think Mr. Cravens had a demo at NI Week, but I have heard of no formal report of how it was recieved.

    Can anyone please update and provide information?

    Thanks!
    -Bob

  • Roger Bird

    Off Topic: I lamented on this forum several months ago about a pinched nerve; I was really hurting. I also became very constipated and had really bad insomnia, etc. I was not a happy camper there for a while. I snapped at my dear family. My wife was freaking out over the possibility of an early grave for me. But thanks to homeopathy, the constipation is 90% better, the insomnia is 85%, and the pinched nerve is 15% better. Homeopathy teaches you patience, and I am just beginning to heal.

    This is one of those things, like LENR, for which we have great experiences, but not very good explanations. I can use words that mean something to me that would explain it, but it probably won’t explain anything to most of the readers. Just trust my report and the reports of millions of people for 220 years. I have been using homeopathy with great success for 43 years. Here is more experience, but no explanation: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/research-and-the-society/research-news/cuban-vaccine-test/

    If you insist upon a good explanation before you try it, then you are probably in the wrong forum.

    Homeopathy is BOSS.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Acupuncture is no slouch. It works for some problems and is no help for others. For me, acupuncture gave me instant relief for sciatica, rotator cuff pain, and for tennis elbow. It was no help for garden variety lower back pain.

      • fortyniner

        About 25 years ago, my wife (who had tried to give up smoking for years) tried acupuncture once – and never smoked again. It offends my Western-science-based belief system – but as I’ve seen it ‘work’ first hand I have to accept it as a real phenomenon, whatever the modus operandi.

        • georgehants

          One day science may stop acting the fool and actually try being scientists.
          With the Placebo Effect or homeopathy or acupuncture or anything else where the Evidence for an effect is overwhelming, then only complete incompetents would shy away, to frightened to face a reality that does not conform to their dogmatic religious beliefs.

        • Roger Bird

          So, here’s the deal: our “Western-science-based belief system” is really based upon an unprovable assumption, and that assumption is materiality, or materialism. In other words, we use the scientific method, but there is nothing in the scientific method that proves or disproves materialism, and materialism can’t be proven or disproven within the context of materialism. So, the scientific method is great, but we have been ASSUMING materialism all along, and I hardly think that assuming something is a proper basis to scientifically believe something. I always say that materialism does not disprove homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. Homeopathy, acupuncture etc. disproves materialism.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    The only reason Nuclear (fission) appears cost competitive is because the industry can externalize the actual costs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

    It does this most insidiously through the Price Anderson Act, originally 1957, and renewed for 20 years in 2005. Nuclear utilities pay into the fund, which covers $12.6 Billion in potential liability from an accident.

    In context, the Fukushima clean up hit $58 billion and may go up to $250b and above, over the next ten years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

    This allows the nuclear industry to “buy insurance” at impossibly low rates compared to the actual potential devastation. It keeps the projected and actual prices artificially low.

    And it’s not just the plant operators who get the artificially cheap liability insurance, Price-Anderson also covers Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, private licensees, and their subcontractors including the USEC uranium enrichment plants, national laboratories and the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

    If proper insurance were paid at every stage of the uranium fuel cycle (mining, enrichment, transportation, energy production, storage, and “cleanup”) the costs per KWh would be gigantic.

    ———–

    And while we’re comparing such things, it’s also worth noting that the oil and coal industries have numerous similar devices that externalize the risks to the public.

    So the numbers are radically skewed. The story is propaganda, pure and simple.

    • Pedro

      Thanks for the insight. It’s one more example about how “capitalism” has managed to keep the profits and share the risks, or better, offload the risks to the population at large.

    • Roger Bird

      I sure wish that I had a graph that reflected these facts that you have written, Robyn. And, of course, the graph should include all energy sources. Would you Robyn or anyone else know of such a graph, because I hate getting lied to and I know that lots of people are inadvertently lying to us about these things. The real cost is much different than the “pump price” for all of these energy sources.

      • GreenWin

        Roger, here is an article identifying the value of subsidies to the nuclear industry.
        http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

        The Figure ES-1 bar chart demonstrates that compared to average price per kWh, nukes should charge up to 11 cents MORE/kWh than they do. The balance is paid for by public through subsidies to operators. Cheap insurance is legislation to satisfy the nuclear lobbies.

        • Venno

          Have some homeopathy thingies now – roger

          • Roger Bird

            ????

    • psi

      Great points, Robyn, thanks for the sociology lesson. I think the story is propaganda on the other end also; sowing fear about something that when all is said and done will likely be dismissed as a classic example of the madness and suggestibility of crowds.

  • Roger Bird

    You might enjoy this article, and at the bottom you will see in the comment section my incredibly sweet visage: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130821-supercapacitors/

    And it wouldn’t hurt if some of you responded to my comment with your own comments supporting what I have said.

    • BroKeeper

      done

  • daniel maris

    Not sure what the point of this story is. It’s nothing to do with cold fusion/LENR.

    As it is, nuclear power is a disastrous choice for energy production as Japan has discovered. It is for one thing a tempting terrorist target. One hates to think what a competent undercover terrorist might achieve in such an environment in terms of sabotage.

    A combination of wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, sea current, wave, biomass, energy from waste and bio fuel can meet our energy needs already. We don’t need nuclear. In any case energy storage technology is proceeding apace. Once that is in place wind and solar energy alone could service all our needs.

    • Roger Bird

      daniel, I like you. I like your contribution. So it pains me to say, that just ain’t true. If it were true, then those alternative energy sources would be dominant in the market. But they aren’t.

      • Ted-X

        We SHOULD be using perhaps ten times more energy that we are using now. Our technologies are energy-starved. More energy would allow reprocessing (100%) of all garbage and old landfills and would make economical a lot of energy-consuming technologies, condensation of water from the air, purification of groundwater and the rivers, and even such processes as making of synthetic gasoline.

        • KayaCliff

          +1

        • fortyniner

          “… the most effective way to meet the energy demands of an ever modernizing world while combating climate change by reducing carbon emissions.”

          Even if ‘climate change’ was a problem, nuclear fission wouldn’t be the answer. As it isn’t, the question of whether we should reconsider uranium/plutonium fission doesn’t even arise.

          http://www.infowars.com/climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling/

          • fortyniner

            Wrong place – never mind.

  • JerryVic

    “Tepco Has Lost Control” – What Is Really Happening At Fukushima In Four Charts >
    http://www.zerohedge.com/node/477904

  • Paul Bennett

    I only read the extract in the post, but the cost estimate: “The study projected that the typical nuclear generator in North America could produce power at $50 to $75 per megawatt/hour, depending on assumptions about construction costs and interest rates” leaves me very concerned that the study did not include disposing of the waste in a safe manner nor the cost of decommissioning power plants that have reached the end of their life. These costs are notoriously underestimated.

    • Warthog

      Actually, those “costs” have already been paid. Nuclear plant operators pay into a fund that is “supposed” to be used specifically and only for doing those things…….BUT……like Social Security, the FedGov has stolen the money and used it for “other things”. The only reason the “final resting place” has proven so expensive are the gigantic delays caused by politics and dozens of lawsuits filed to prevent the repository from being used.

      But not using Yucca Mountain as a repository, and saying that it is “unsafe” to do so, when Yucca Flats, located only a few miles away, has been the site of multiple underground nuclear tests, is simply ludicrous.

      • winebuff

        Yeah that’s why nobody will insure a nuke plant only the tax payer!! Sounds famliar to other Industries (banking)

    • Chris I

      Indeed, they are not even computable in actual fact.

  • georgehants

    Had this article included an outline of the current position of Cold Fusion Research and demanded that main-line science immediately put in the necessary funds and manpower to ascertain it’s viability for general use, then it would have shown itself to be more than an incompetent or even corrupt and biased preaching of establishment Dogma.

    • atanguy

      +1

  • Felix Fervens

    Typically I don’t think it valid to attack the messenger.

    But is this is the same NYT that was shouting about WMD and shilling for war with Iraq on the front pages?

    It’s time we recognize that the more mainstream the media, the more of a mouthpiece for the mainstream monopolists and oligarchs they are. NYT is at the top of the FUD chain.

    NYT will tell the truth often, but is always there for the powers that be when it’s time to tell the Big Lie.

    • LCD

      In the absence of LENR i can see why that conclusion is reached. I don’t think its a lie, just an opinion I don’t agree with.

    • fortyniner

      Clearly that is the case. To identify the propaganda mouthpieces it is only necessary to look at which ‘news’ media are pushing the ‘govt. chemical attacks’ in Syria false flag story in order to try to justify yet another pointless war.

      The similarities with the Bush-Blair Iraq/WMD disinformation story indicates a degree of cynicism that leaves many people open-mouthed.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    It is critical that LENR prove itself as an alternative very soon before the world commits itself financially to unsafe conventional nuclear.

    • LCD

      very true

    • Jim

      This is an excellent “selling point”. Is there a way to add LENR to the anti-nuke crowds undoubtedly already existent list of alternative energy research topics?

  • kirk

    This was my comment (I was the third comment yesterday…. near the bottom…..
    kirk

    Nuclear looks promising i.e. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion and other names including “junk science” , Condensed matter nuclear physics , Pons fleishman effect, etc) no radioactive waste, no dangerous radiation (that can’t be easily shielded, almost limitless “free” energy. It’s a real phenomena (per NASA, the US Navy (who now have a patent), and other government entities and some universities including the University of Missouri who now have a research institute for condensed matter nuclear physics etc etc… It’s real but without an accepted theory about what is causing an anomolous heat effect (excessive heat) when nickel is “loaded with Hydrogen” however there are more and more theories…. the only question is wether it will be commercializable in the near future….. the phenomena appears to be very difficult to initialize (unless you know the secrets) and difficult to maintain (the phenomena just wants to either die out or go nuts and burn everything up in a fury)

  • Gordon Docherty

    Swedish TV’s show “Vetenskapens Värld” (The World of Science) Documentary about Cold Fusion and Andrea Rossi, posted December 19th 2012, with English sub-titles:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHXc7NNMiWo

  • Roger Bird

    The comment section was closed, so I didn’t read the article. I WAS going to say: “Have no fear; LENR is here.” But I didn’t get a chance.

    • Leo Kaas

      Roger, you should let Frank use that saying on a T shirt. haha

      • Roger Bird

        I figure that just the letter L E N R would be enough for people to go search and find what I want them to find. Yes, Frank may use that quote.