K D. Interesting - thanks!

K D. You might be interested in this piece re Japan and the nuclear industry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274

Richard A. Yes, this is serious business, but IMHO the solution is to engineer truly safe new reactors and to retrofit older reactors as best possible. We evaluate consider safer Canadian designed reactors and adopt the technology which is safest against all natural disasters and against human operator error. IMHO the solution is to not abandon fission nuclear reactors in favor of burning coal, with all its detriments. Energy from wind farms and solar farm is clean, but not price/effective and is only a drop in a big bucket.

Jeremy G. @Richard, hard not to agree with that. The idea of a "clean" energy future seems impossible without some sort of nuclear (which I think is the Obama administration's point as well). Although perhaps to @Keyth's point we might need to do a better job at preparing for the "black swan" events -- ie, we don't know what we don't know so we should assume something really bad will happen at some point...

Jeremy G. I thought this was a good conversation on the topic too http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11551

Richard A. Jeremy,

That link does provide some interesting numbers.

I was especially interested in the numbers provided by "trag" which are cut and pasted here for: "The most effective method is "waste" recycling. I put waste in quotes because more than 90% of nuclear "waste" is actually usable uranium. That waste is extremely valuable -- about $130/lb. Once the impurities are removed the true waste for a year's operation at a nuclear plant would fit under your desk." Wow! And elsewhere it is stated that Japan sends its nuclear waste to France for reprocessing. The Japanese are clearly doing the right, responsible and economically sound thing. The US is shortsighted and creating a large problem for the future. At some future time the US will have to handle highly radioactive "waste" stored in leaking drums deep in a mountain to recover the 90% of the fissionable material which is still perfectly useful. The French glassify and safely store the 10% remainder such that it can not get loose and it can not contaminate the ground water. The world has only a limited known reserves of the isotopes of uranium used in fission reactors. At some point the US and other countries will absolutely have to make good use of all of the unprocessed "waste", which is really valuable nuclear fuel. If would be far cheaper to reprocess the "waste" now when it is in in-tact form instead of taking the risks and costs of transport, storage and later re-transport for re-processing in the distant future.

Jeremy G. Perhaps this is why Russia was so eager to "store" our nuclear waste http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5546366

Richard A. Jeremy - Here is another link which may be of interest to you http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121529261. Apparaently there are current cost problems in the reprocessing enterprise, but, I trust that technology will conquer those problems. It appears from the referenced story that multiple countries reprocess nuclear power plant "waste" and that there are newer generations of reactor design which produce more energy from less nuclear fuel. You probably know more about these newer generations of pressurized reactors and their pros and cons. Possibly the US should consider selling its vast stored fissile "waste" to trading partner countries having state-of-the art reprocessing technology, which could use the recovered nuclear fuel in their own nuclear power plants and could safely store the very compact glassified radioactive waste. Reprocessing of nuclear waste is a high technology industry which could produce productive and needed jobs in the US. IMHO, the US should undertake the reprocessing of its own nuclear "waste". The US is already sorting out and bailing its waste long grain paper from "waste" which used to go with other "waste" into ever growing landfills, previously creating a problem. Waste recycling is now being been turned into a profitable enterprise. Why not turn the nuclear "waste" problem into a profitable enterprise? I further wonder if the long half-life glassified fissile waste could be packaged/shielded into useful small and relly safe portable heat and/or electrical generators which would generate further revenue. I do believe that the Russians at one time produced such a portable device, with rather limited shielding for use in remote places. For reason unknown to me the device was left out in the cold wilderness, inadequately identified. A party of Russians staying overnight near the warm device and was consequently accidentally killed. You are well informed and likely have a bookmark to that story.

Josh N. You should read the Energy Information Agency results, not some random researcher. EIA clearly shows that wind is cheaper than nuclear. Not by a lot, mind you, but enough.

Richard A. Josh N., could you be more specific as to where you got your numbers from within any EIA report?

You might want to reconsider your statement "wind is cheaper than nuclear" after looking at the numbers and graphs at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html .

After reading "SUSTAINABLE ENERGY- WITHOUT THE HOT AIR" by David JC MacKay FRS, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, at http://www.withouthotair.com/about.html and after reading his bio at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/bio.html would you continue, apparently without evaluation, to dismiss this source off as "some random researcher".

Josh N. World Nuclear is obviously an advocacy organization.

Here is the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy of the United States Government discussing the levelized cost of new generation.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Nuclear = 90.1
Wind = 83.9

FYI, now two weeks after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, there is a leak in reactor 2 leaking 1 sievert an hour. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake;_ylt=AtXNekol9zKsPrlOXZeP6SOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqb3RlaXNpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzI3L2FzX2phcGFuX2VhcnRocXVha2UEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqYXBhbmh1Z2VyYWQ-

Jeremy G. Richard -- thanks for the links and information. I think you bring up a compelling argument for reprocessing waste in the US and perhaps nuclear power in general; if we don't do it, another country will and they will pull ahead of us in the relevant technology. Also, per kilowatt hour coal will kill far more people than nuclear: http://www.economist.com/node/18441163?story_id=18441163

Josh -- I'm all for alternatives, but I'm under the impression that as a practical matter if we cut out nuclear over the next, say, 20 years, we would likely end up with more coal which seems worse. To incent the technological development of better wind, solar and other technologies (and I think we need better technology to make alternatives truly competitive on a fully loaded cost basis with coal?) we probably could use some sort of tax on carbon....but that seems to be politically untenable. But we may be running out of politically tenable choices.

Josh N. Personally? I see no reason to eliminate the nuclear we currently have.

I'm also open to new nuke plant designs. Toyota, I think, has a mini nuke plant which looks like it might be interesting.

We offer massive subsidies to nuclear (insurance related, especially) and coal (clean coal research technology, a right wing boondoggle for the coal industry).

As for a carbon tax, you'd be surprised how tenable it is. Let me tell you a true story.

Al Gore, Jr., after his award winning movie, spoke before Congress. One of the least worthy people, the guy who takes tons of money from big oil, but couldn't debate his way about global warming with any serious scientist, the guy who makes me embarrassed for Oklahoma and America, James Inhofe, held a counter hearing with one speaker, Bjorn Lumberg.

Bjorn Lumberg suggested a $2 to $15/ton carbon tax.