Blatant Reality

Brazil is looking to expand its nuclear power programs and plans on having a new plant operational by the time they host the FIFA World Soccer Championship in 2014.

The Brazilian government has authorized the company, Electronuclear, to go back to work on the nation’s third nuclear power plant.

 

Work on the Angra 3 reactor, near Rio de Janeiro, has been stalled for 22 years by a lack of money and political issues.

 

But the administration of President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva is turning to nuclear power to meet electricity needs that are growing with the country’s booming economy.

 

“Things have changed a lot, and today it’s clearer to everyone that nuclear energy has a role to play in the Brazilian electrical system, just like the other forms of producing electricity, which can’t be dismissed,” said Leonam Guimaraes, an Electronuclear spokesman.

 

Brazil is the 10th-largest energy consumer in the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It’s the third-largest consumer in the Western Hemisphere, behind the United States and Canada.

 

The two operational nuclear power plants in Brazil supply about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While the world focuses on Iran and tries to block it from gaining nuclear capabilities, many other countries are looking into gaining nuclear power. At least nine central and southeastern European countries either have nuclear reactors or are planning on getting them soon. The reasons states for going nuclear range from reliability to energy independence. You can see the complete list with each county named here.

It’s about time that McCain gave me something to look forward if he wins the presidency.

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds “to make clean coal a reality,” measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

 

(…)

 

“Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years,” he said. “And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone.”

 

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

 

“We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field,” he conceded.

Powerline Blog has more on this here.

I have probably stated this fact before but the French get roughly 75% of their energy from nuclear power. They have been operating on a mainly nuclear power since the 70s and the lack of media attention this has received should be a sign of just how successful they have been in this respect.

A recent news article by CNN makes the argument that the US should follow the France’s example in order to end our dependency on foreign oil.

When Goldman Sachs analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don’t have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it’s too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we’re willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out.

 

One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It’s one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it’s responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable.

 

It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.

I don’t normally say this but the French have a good idea here and I think we just might to emulate them this one time.

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how much the government subsidizes different energy sources. The kicker was just how much green energy was costing the American taxpayer.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

 

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

I personally find that absolutely outrageous that the government would be wasting that much money on wind, solar, and clean coal when nuclear power is so “cheap” in comparison. Even the founder of Greenpeace thinks nuclear energy is “green” so why aren’t we focusing on building more nuclear power plants?

I mean, if the government is going to be hellbent of subsidizing something it might as well be something that we can at least get a good return off of.

I don’t know if you have heard about the Utah nuclear waste company that wants to import waste from Italy but now they are becoming one of the largest contributors to several politicians, including one from SC. I’m guessing people aren’t really to hot about the idea of having to ship nuclear waste all the way across the country.

Since 2005, the company’s political action committee, executives and investors have poured nearly $400,000 into congressional campaigns through January, up from about $40,000 in the four previous years, Federal Election Commission reports show.

 

The company’s growing influence in Washington will be tested this year as it tries to kill a bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive foreign waste, which would be disposed at its dump in western Utah’s desert.

 

“I’m sure this means many millions of dollars to them, so I’m sure they’re going to be working hard to stop it,” said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the bill’s co-sponsor.

 

EnergySolutions increased lobbyist spending from $680,000 in 2006 to more than $1 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

Since Utah has this tiny problem of being a landlocked state, the nuclear waste would obviously have to first make its way through a port. What port is it? Well, as the saying goes, all you have to do is follow the money. Guess where the biggest chunk of money has gone too. None other than South Carolina’s very own Lindsay Graham.

The biggest recipient of EnergySolutions’ recent spending spree is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

 

Graham has received $24,000 in campaign contributions from EnergySolutions’ PAC and more than $19,000 from company investors and executives since December 2006.

 

He is encouraging the NRC to allow the construction of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina, where EnergySolutions manages the site through which the Italian waste could be imported.

 

The company wants to import the waste through the ports of Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans for processing in Tennessee.

Now I’m not bashing on Senator Graham because I, for one, am all for nuclear energy. Therefore, I know that this problem of shipping nuclear waste from one place to another is a major issue that will have to be dealt with. The fact that Charleston would be the main port for something like this is great because there have been recent reports that Charleston’s port has slowly been receiving less shipments. This will be great to pump some extra cash into the economy.

However, South Carolina’s main source of income is tourism and Charleston is a major tourist city. Therefore, if there were to be an accident dealing with nuclear waste in Charleston, a very vital of the state’s livelihood would be gone. What this means is that even though I am all for nuclear energy and even possibly this Utah deal, there better be some hell of regulations to ensure that everything goes smoothly and safely

Well, you really shouldn’t be. Even with the promise of many more nuclear power plants, the odds are that we will develop new ways to use the nuclear waste. This is all because of the wonders of a capitalistic society.

The gist of it is that since the demand for uranium will increase, the price will increase also. The higher prices of uranium will make it economically feasible to find new ways to process the waste that could be potentially cheaper than obtaining uranium itself. I’m no scientist or chemist but from my understanding of nuclear material, you could potentially derive energy from it until it has decayed into lead. Thats a lot of potential energy stored in nuclear waste.

Don’t think that this will happen? Well I’m sorry to burst your bubble but talks are already beginning about this.

In 2000, uranium was selling for about $7 per pound. By last summer it was at $140 per pound. Prices have dropped back now, to about $73 per pound.

 

But that still means the uranium that could be recovered from the waste could be worth about $7.6 billion, according to the federal Government Accountability Office.

 

“Suddenly, this waste nobody wanted has become very valuable,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District, in which the Paducah plant is located.

Where there is a demand, someone will always find ways to supply, for a small price of course.

Southern Co. filed an application yesterday to build two new reactors at an existing nuclear power plant site in Georgia.

Southern Co., the biggest U.S. power producer, is seeking permission from the federal government to build two additional nuclear reactors and almost double output at its Vogtle site in Georgia.

 

The company is proposing to add two 1,150-megawatt reactors to the two-unit site about 20 miles south of Augusta. Atlanta-based Southern’s application was the first of two submitted Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. South Carolina-based SCANA Corp. said it also filed an application.

 

“We expect demand for electricity in the Southeast, specifically in Georgia, to increase significantly by 2015 and beyond,” Barnie Beasley, president of Southern’s nuclear unit, said in a statement. “Nuclear power is a safe, reliable, cost-effective power source that has a low impact on the environment.”

As I stated back in October, Egypt is looking to make a deal with Russia to get nuclear reactors. Now it seems that they are just a couple days from signing a deal that would allow Russia to build reactors in Egypt.

The document will be signed during a forthcoming visit by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to Moscow on March 24-25, Gheit said.

 

“This agreement will enable Egypt to use Russia’s extensive experience in the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” Gheit said.

 

A source in Egypt’s electricity and energy ministry earlier said the document will lay the foundation for nuclear energy cooperation between Egypt and Russia and will strengthen relations between Russian companies and Egypt.

You know why they picked Russia over the US to build these reactors? Its because the United States imposes “tough restrictions, including regular inspections and control.” And you know why we do all those “tough restrictions” and “inspections?” It’s because we want to be sure that this nuclear technology doesn’t fall into the wrong hands that could use it against our strategic ally, Israel.

You would think that something as big as this would be getting a lot more media attention.

In order to thwart a “Mad Max” like future, an Australian professor argued at a recent energy conference that Australia needs to start building Nuclear Power plants.

He says wind and solar power will not be viable to meet energy demands when the electricity grid eventually fails under extreme pressure.

 

“They are straining right now and a few more years of growth, a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable; that we need electricity and that electricity needs to be reliable,” he said.

 

“And to get base load power we do not want to have coal generation; the only sensible and sustainable base load power is uranium.

 

“If people start dying in hospitals because there’s no electricity, if people can’t get water because there’s no electricity to pump water from dams, if people can’t keep their food cool because there’s no electricity for refrigeration, then I think there’ll be a very, very, very rapid change of opinion.”

Unless you want Mel Gibson riding around on a motorcycle in the Australian Outback, I would heed this professor’s warning.