Chernobyl isn't as bad as people think ? Clearly, this is written by someone who has never been to the Ukraine or Belarus. This accident has had a lingering and devastating effect and fatality estimates differ widely. By some estimates over 100,000 of the "liquidators" (those who rushed in after the accident to fight the fire and spread of radiation) have already died.

But more relevantly. we nearly had a Chernobyl scale accident outside of Toledo in 2002, at the David Besse reactor complex. The nuclear boosters like to simply ignore this fact.

Just a quick comment on wind -- there can be capacity value to wind energy if there is enough of it built and if there is the transmission infrastructure to support it. Wind may be intermittent everywhere, but wind is always blowing somewhere.

A majority of the public, especially the public in the near neighbourhood of nuclear powerplants, see them as normal and beneficial. They deprive oil and gas interests of dollars, and instead give pennies to uranium interests, and those oil and gas interests include government, so paid media tend to report what the big industry and government money thinks rather than what the people think. But since people die when oil and gas are used in place of nuclear energy, anyone wishing to stay on fossil fuel money's good side must not lay the blame on it, due though this is. Rather, the public must be falsely blamed.

Dr. Edward Teller taught the US and other western countries the lessons of Chernobyl in 1950. After that, no such risk was ever taken outside the USSR.

Catonsville-based consumer advocate Chris Bush, on his emailed news report, criticized the Sunday piece for being, in his mind, too pro-nuclear. (He counted the paragraphs and concluded about two thirds were pro-nuke, and only one third anti-nuke).

He raises the issue of the high cost of building nuclear power plants. Here is a portion of his critique:

"Pelton's article... doesn't discuss cost issues, either: nuclear power is more expensive than wind, including generation costs of 3 ckwh
- wind turbines are, overall, cheaper to construct and operate on a per household basis-with the cost of the fuel is FREE, i.e. 0 ckwh
- the calcs of wind v nuclear are as follows: the Calvert Cliffs nuclear expansion will, if approved, add 1600 Megs of capacity; 1 Meg will
power 1000 homes, so 1600 Megs will power 1.6 Million households (there are 1.1 Million households in Constellation/BGE's territory today);
the cost of the CC expansion will likely be 6 Billion (4.2 Billion if the Feds give funding support); this comes to $3,750 per home which, if
financed over 30 year at 5% will be cost $20.13 a month; then, add $30 a month for the cost of generating electricity at 3 ckwh x 1000 kwh
per month, for a total monthly cost of $50.13 (source figures above are from prior Balt Sun articles on Calvert Cliffs; the 3 ckwh figure comes from
the New York Times)
- assuming a cost of $4 Million per wind turbine, each turbine can provide enough electricity to power 600 homes; this translates to a construction
cost of $6,667 per household, which, when financed over 30 years at 5%, equals $35.79 a month; there is NO fuel charge for wind, however, so
wind overall will cost $35.79 vs $50.13 for nuclear (note: the wind turbine cost comes from data involving the Minnesota wind farm project recently
approved in that state; the Delaware wind turbines for the proposed wind farms offshore in that state are projected to cost much more, at $10.6 Million
per turbine, which has caused significant concern in that state among government regulators; it's unclear at this time why the huge markup, whether
it's a result of ocean based turbines or profit markups by Bluewater Wind; the amount of homes that a windmill will generate electricity for comes
from the Delaware New Journal, dividing the number of windmills in the proposed Delaware wind farm by the amount of aggregate homes serviced)
- using the $4.2 Billion figure for nuclear-assuming a federal government subsidy-nuclear is STILL more expensive than wind, costing overall
$44.09 for nuclear vs $35.79 for wind (again, using a $4 Million per wind turbine cost)

Stephen Reichert

The real solution to the Global Warming crisis was developed by the DOE/NASA over 20 years ago. What is lacking is an administration in Washington with the vision to implement it. It would be good for the planet and good for the United States. See the following articles.

Press Briefing on
Solar Power Satellite Report:
"No Showstoppers"
by Frederick Osborn, Jr.
February 1981
The DOE/NASA Program Assessment Report — Statement of Findings on its Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program was presented to more than 50 representatives of the media at a press briefing organized by an Ad Hoc Coordinating Committee on Space on December 3 at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Jerry Grey, Administrator of Public Policy, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, introduced Dr. Peter E. Glaser, Vice President of Arthur D. Little. Inc. and president of SUNSAT Energy Council, who presented an overview of the report and answered questions for more than an hour and a half.
The report, Dr. Glaser said. is the culmination of a three year $19.5 million study by the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, and more than 60 organizations, including public interest and small consulting groups as well as universities and large industrial firms.
The report is a landmark document, he said. It represents the first time in the history of assessing energy options that a major technology has been reviewed so carefully prior to its application. It sets a pattern for future assessments of major technologies.
While the report presents no conclusions or recommendations, its findings are positive for further exploration of the SPS concept. No "show stoppers" or insurmountable obstacles to bringing power from space down to the Earth's surface were found.
Because of the significance of these findings to future energy supplies, to public understanding of SPS, and to futture space activities, an ad-hoc Coordinating Committee on Space, comprised of the Aerospace Industries Association, the American Astronautical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the L-5 Society, the National Space Institute, the Space Foundation and SUNSAT Energy Council was formed to organize the press briefing, to publicize the key findings and to present conclusions and recommendations.
Dr. Glaser selected the following highlights:
• The reference system developed by NASA for the study (a 10x5 km satellite using photovoltaic or thermal collectors to feed a 2.45 GHz transmitter using klystrons and delivering 5 GWe to utility grids on the earth via a 10x13 km receiving antenna) uses only known technology and is amenable to evolutionary development. Solar Power Satellites appear to be not only technically possible, but also subject to technical improvement. For example, advanced concepts with improved technology, developed only 2-1/2 years after the reference system was evolved, project a capital cost reduction from the reference system estimate of $3000 per kilowatt to $1500 per kilowatt.
• No environmental effects were identified as clearly irreducible and unacceptable, including microwave and non-microwave health, ecological, atmospheric and communication effects.
• No insurmountable problems of providing materials or finding land for receiving antennas were uncovered, although some additional manufacturing capacity will be required. Net energy analysis indicates that the SPS energy ratio is very favorable compared with that of fossil and nuclear energy options if fuel requirements are included.
• Government regulations, private sector interface, electricity pricing, industry and labor relocations, financing, and the role of federal and state agencies in land use and energy planning will require further clarification.
• The DOE study has made a great contribution to the knowledge of microwaves. During the next decade the United States and the international community can be expected to agree on microwave exposure standards. When the standards are set the microwave flux in the vicinity of a receiving antenna could be controlled to meet such standards.
• Lloyd's is already insuring business satellites. As insurance consortiums become more familiar with satellite operations, SPS ground and space risks may become insurable.
• The COMSAT/INTELSAT organization, which now includes 102 countries, is a precedent for the type of international cooperation on the global energy option provided by SPS. A similar organization could be acceptable to both developed and developing countries, sharing costs, distributing benefits widely, preventing military use of SPS and minimizing vulnerability to attack.
• Solar Power Satellites, by opening up a new and very large energy resource, provide opportunities for improving international relations on a global basis.
• The Department of Energy's Solar Power Satellite Project Division has pioneered in reaching out to uncover possible areas of public concern and has recognized the public's legitimate role in the decision process. Both advocates and opponents agree that many of the impacts of the SPS program require further study.
• The life cycle cost of solar power satellites is competitive with coal, nuclear and terrestrial photovoltaics. Each alternative technology will have its distinct health and safety impacts and the low level and delayed impacts of all technologies will he hard to assess. The total amount of land required for the complete fuel cycle is roughly the same fur all technologies, but SPS and terrestrial photovoltaics for base-load (centralized) power require large contiguous land areas.
• Space is not owned by the U.S. or by any other country. There is a great demand for positions on the geosynchronous orbit. This could burden SPS with international regulations that may not limit other technologies.
On the basis of the DOE / NASA assessment findings the ad-hoc Coordinating Committee on Space concludes that:
No technical, economic, environmental, societal, or other constraint has been identified which would preclude continuation of an SPS R&D program.
Technical advances, with consequent cost reductions in components and in space transportation can increase the technical feasibility and economic viability of power satellites beyond that of the SPS Reference System. SPS is not critically dependent on any specific technology, which increases confidence in the concept.
Dr. Glaser concluded with his belief that now is the time to explore the possible contribution of the SPS concept to meet the U.S. and the world's future energy demands. "It is our responsibility to future generations," he said, "to bring the research on the SPS to its logical conclusion and, in concert with other nations, decide whether or not to proceed with the development of this major energy option."
Dr. Glaser was asked whether power from SPS could be delivered directly to homes, like television broadcasting from communications satellites. He replied that SPS will probably deliver power appropriate to a wide range of situations.
Asked about possible scarcity of materials, Dr. Glaser said more manufacturing capacity for photovoltaic cells was needed, but that the cells are made of common materials which are in ample supply. There may be shortages of materials for some parts of the satellite system, but substitutes can probably be found. As regards making 1-1/2 billion dipoles for receiving antennas, Dr. Grey said a Japanese friend had told him "give us an order and we'll deliver in six months."
When asked about making SPS from lunar materials Dr. Grey replied that it would probably not be done in the early stages, but ultimately, yes, it would be cheaper.
Dr. Grey was asked whether all the energy collected in space would have to be beamed down to the Earth. He replied that SPS was a first step in the industrial use of space, and that the energy up there is by no means limited to Earth surface use.
Asked about the present status of the DOE /NASA SPS program, Dr. Grey said it is presently dead. DOE has zero funds from now to October '81.

Sunny Outlook for Sunsats
Monday, Dec. 15, 1980 By FREDERIC GOLDEN

A federal study finds solar satellites technically feasible
Top of Form

Bottom of Form
It is the year 2005. At the White House an agitated aide rushes into the Oval Office with grim news. "Mr. President," he announces, "OPEC has just raised its prices by another 10%, and oil will be going up to $450 a barrel by next January." To the assistant's surprise, though, the Chief Executive seems unconcerned. "Don't worry," says the President. "This time it isn't going to matter. We will have another three solar satellites on line by early next year, so we can tell those cartel characters to take their oil and [expletives deleted]."
Any scenario calling for complete U.S. freedom from foreign oil supplies is probably a petro-pipedream. But the notion of using solar satellites to capture vast amounts of energy may not be very farfetched at all. In spite of considerable scoffing at the sci-fi grandiosity of the idea, a report published last week, after a threeyear, $19.5 million study undertaken by the Department of Energy in collaboration with NASA, indicates that there are no insurmountable technological hurdles in the way of solar power satellites (SPS) as a major alternative energy source.
The report, says SPS Pioneer Peter Glaser, "is a landmark study that should go a long way to dispel the apprehensions and just plain misunderstandings about solar power satellites."
Glaser, 57, a vice president at Arthur D. Little, Inc., the Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, is a Czech-born engineer who first proposed solar satellites twelve years ago. Foreseeing a day when oil would run out and other fossil fuels would become scarce, he suggested placing two giant arrays of solar cells, each about half the size of Manhattan, 22,300 miles above the earth in geosynchronous orbit; there the structures' orbital speed would match the planet's rotation, thus holding the solar powerhouses over the same spot on the ground. Bathed in almost perpetual sunshine, the cells, like those already used to power weather and communications satellites, would convert the sun's energy into electricity, which would then be beamed to earth as microwaves.
Even at night or on cloudy days on earth, when ground-based solar collectors shut down, these microwaves would come flooding down from space. In the scheme studied by the Energy Department, these beams would be focused on six-mile by nine-mile oval-shaped receiving antennas called rectennas. The rectennas would turn the microwaves back into electricity and funnel it into utility power grids. By Glaser's calculation, one satellite could supply as much electricity as five nuclear plants. The Energy Department envisioned 60 such arrays, built over 30 years, to supply 300 million kW., which is about half the U.S.'s current electrical generating capacity.
For a long time, Glaser recalls, even some of his scientific colleagues "thought T was writing science fiction." Many critics, recoiling at the potential cost of $100 billion or so for the first satellite, called his idea a pie-in-the-sky space boondoggle. Others worried about the effects of microwave radiation, fretting that passengers in passing airplanes might be flash-cooked like roasts in a microwave oven.
At a press briefing heralding the Energy Department study, Glaser replied to all these objections. He pointed out that solar satellites, unlike power plants that would use nuclear fusion, need no major technological breakthroughs; the space program has already shown that the required scientific know-how exists. What of the staggering costs? Glaser argued that after the turn of the century, when such satellites could be in operation, their electricity probably would be no costlier, and perhaps a lot cheaper, than power from oil, coal and nuclear plants. As for the danger from microwaves, Glaser conceded that this needs further study. But he pointed out that a satellite's beam would always be locked on target; in fact, it would disperse altogether if the satellite did not receive continuous electronic cues from a transmitter in the rectenna. Along its edge, said Glaser, the beam would be much less powerful than permissible leak age from a closed microwave oven.

For all the optimism radiated by Glaser and the Sunsat Energy Council, a coalition of individuals and corporations lobbying for his scheme, no one could deny SPS's enormous complexities.

Weighing up to 50,000 tons apiece, solar satellites would have to be built in space itself, with materials carried aloft by a new generation of craft considerably larger and more powerful than the NASA space shuttle. Looking like great Erector Sets, the structures, about six miles long and three miles wide, would be made of long thin beams actually manufactured in space out of rolls of aluminum or carbon-fiber strips about as thick as the wall of a beer can. In the weightlessness of orbit, nothing stronger would be needed.

Though much of the assembly would be automated, as many as 600 construction workers would have to be housed at the orbital site for months at a time. As NASA's problems with the space shuttle's heat-shielding tiles have shown, countless un expected difficulties could crop up in such a complicated undertaking.

Nonetheless, the House of Representatives was sufficiently fascinated by the proposal to pass a bill last year calling for $25 million in fiscal 1980 for further study of the concept, especially its environmental effects. Though the proposal died in the Senate, SPS advocates are now mounting a campaign for enactment of a similar measure by the next Congress.

They have one compelling argument in heir favor. This year the lawmakers passed a bill calling for $20 billion in spending for fusion research over the next two decades. Why not hedge that bet with a few million dollars at least to investigate another idea that may be every bit as promising?
— By Frederic Golden

"producing almost none of the greenhouse gases"

Unfortunately, the use of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel to build nuclear power plants, the fact that they only last 20 to 30 years, and the immense amount of energy required to dismantle them, means that a massive amount of CO2 is in fact created indirectly by these plants.

It would be madness not to take this into consideration and yet the proponents of nuclear energy conveniently overlook this.

There is also the point that nuclear power plants are simply not economical when compared with renewal sources of energy. One would have thought that this would be enough to end the debate, but there are a number of very large energy companies who are very keen to make a "killing" on this short-term, extremely dangerous form of energy generation.

There is a better solution than nuclear for electric generation. Solar - using solar thermal technology which can provide base load imported from the U.S. southwest on high voltage dc, an existing, well developed technology. We import oil 6000 miles, why not solar electric about 2000 miles?
I don't like nuclear energy because it spreads weapons related technology.
Solar thermal technology has been generating energy in the California desert for over 20 years. The Germans have looked at solar thermal generation in North Africa and moving it under the Mediterranean over 3000 km at their estimated cost for transmission of about one cent per kwh.

Nuclear cost too much to build, takes too long to build, and uses copious amounts of fossil fuels during construction.

Ask the residents that live around Connecticut Yankee, Millstone, Browns Ferry, Trojan, etc.... if they like living next to a nuclear reactor.

It's not a matter of one or the other - as long as there are coal-fired plants in operation there will be the need for cleaner electricity. Build both the wind and nuclear capacity and then shut off the coal.

I live near the Calvert Cliffs power plant and most of the people living near me work there. I feel incredibly safe near it and i sincerely hope that the new EPR gets built at calvert cliffs.

And for those who are arguing that nuclear does produce greenhouse gases, you need to do some research. There are multiple life cycle analysis articles out there that show that nuclear produces less than any source other than hydro. Look up some papers by Erik Alsema.

As for the possibility of disaster Chernobyl was absolutely horrible and any reactor capable of causing the damage chernobyl did should not be built. Fortunately for us, US nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. The required containment structure would contain radiation even in the event of a full meltdown. Statistically speaking the nuclear power industry is one of the safest industries in this country.

Wind and Solar should also be increased but nuclear also needs to be in the mix if we have any chance of breaking our fossil fuel addiction

Wow Tom, instead of mindlessly repeating the assertions in that factually incorrect book, why don't you first do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

Oh wait, that would require REAL reporting!

Doh!

Nuclear power is inexpensive, sustainable, and safe.

Cost
Yes nuclear power plants are expensive to build (est 6 billion for 1300 MWe compared to 2 billion for a gas fired plant.) However these costs are amortized over the lifetime of the facility, typically 30 to 40 years. The fuel costs for nuclear are not volatile and over the last 50 years have not had significant spikes in price. The low fuel costs plus the distribution of the costs over several decades makes nuclear power very inexpensive. The initial large capital investment (risk) compounded by political wrangling (delay and interest payments) is why plants have not been built in this country.

Longevity
There is sufficient uranium mined in the US to meet the nations entire energy needs plus projected growth for over 500 years (depending on how you model projected growth.) There is enough uranium that is readily accessible to meet the world's energy needs for the next hundred thousand years. This longevity does require a change in technology, but that technology exists and is ready for prototype. This technology also simplifies the waste stream removing the long lived and highly toxic actinides from the waste and burning them as fuel. This leaves only fission products that decay to the same radiotoxicity levels of natural uranium in 300 to 500 years. This technology is also very proliferation resistant because the desirable plutonium is never separated from the other intensely radioactive actinides. The process that I just described is based on the technology developed by Argonne National Lab called the Integral Fast Reactor. For more information see http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t37819.html

If we do not close the fuel cycle by reprocessing our waste the picture of nuclear power lasting for 70 years is a little conservative, but is not far from the mark.

Safety
Of all of the industries in the world, nuclear power is one of the safest. If you take all of the deaths (direct or indirect causes) from nuclear power in the last 50 years you will have a number that is less than the number of deaths from coal power (direct causes) in one year. This comparison is done globally.

The advanced reactor designs like the Integral Fast Reactor rely on physics to maintain reactor safety through a process called inherent safety. The nuclear plants that will be built in the next decade are passively safe and of their own right are a drastic improvement over the existing 103 nuclear plants in the country today.

I am an environmentalist, I am also a nuclear engineer. I grew up in Wisconsin and as a mater of personal opinion, I enjoy the rolling landscapes of the upper midwest and find the wind farms ugly and disruptive. Every choice we face with the upcoming energy crisis will have consequences. The choices that we make and the consequences we are willing to accept depend on what we value. I value preserving the landscape, stopping CO2 emissions, and maintaining my quality of life.

If you are in doubt of the information I provided you can research the numbers through:
http://www.ans.org (American Nuclear Society)
and
http://www.nei.org (Nuclear Energy Institute)
or you can use a search engine of your preference.

I used to be all for Nuclear power, and live in the UK, however the costs for the electricity generated are staggering. Apparently hardly any nuclear power stations have been constructed in Europe for decades because the costs are still not fully known - costs of decommissioning stations and handling the waste are always spiraling and building new stations without knowing the long term costs would be simply allowing future generations to yet again shoulder the burden.

I am not concerned at all by the dangers of Nuclear Power - it is a very mature method of generating heat and electivity.

The amount of solar energy that hits the earth is about 5000x our current energy consumption world-wide. This is just one statistic that should make people think outside the box more when looking at the long term potential. A wind turbine is actually economically feasible - it pays itself off during its lifetime and makes profits (depending on various factors). A Nuclear Power station never does - it simply cannot. Solar, wave and wind are getting increasingly cheaper yet Nuclear Power is increasingly more expensive - hardly the best place to start putting your eggs for the future.

Another factor many people may forget is that a wind, solar, wave electricity generation plant may be installed in a few months / few years. A nuclear power plant takes a decade - if it is on time (when are they ever on schedule?).

This makes the truly renewable sources of electrify far more flexible and better enabling strategic investment. Most of the truly renewable sources can be placed closer to the areas they are used, minimizing energy wasted.

I cannot see the benefit of waiting a decade for a new nuclear power station that produces enough power for a city, yet after all the wastage is taken into account, the grid only actually delivers about 30% to its destination, and then many appliances waste another portion of that energy again.

Please do not pin any hopes on nuclear power saving the day on emissions benefits, it is too expensive, and most of the energy it creates is wasted. A better way is to invest in transforming the infrastructure to minimize waste electivity during transportation, and using more numerous truly renewable and affordable sources instead.

The appliances in homes and the workplace need to meet higher standards in energy efficiency – such antique technology as indecent bulbs should be phased out as part of this.

Paxud – More relevantly, Davis Besse, like ALL commercial power reactors in the US, has a containment building. Remember that big round concrete thing that effectively contained the “worst US nuclear accident in history” at Three Mile Island? Chernobyl, on the other hand, had a sheet metal building around a graphite reactor – much like a big grill full of charcoal sitting out on a patio. If the reactor head corrosion progressed into a leak at Davis Besse, the redundant safety systems and the concrete containment building are designed to handle it. All US plants are designed to withstand what are called Design Basis Accidents – hypothetical worst case events. You cannot use bad Soviet reactor designs to scare reasonable people in the US today. That is so 1980s.

It’s nice to have reporters like yourself that we can rely on to provide us with balanced and informative articles on matters of significant importance.

Great article.

Richard B. Stanley, Esq

A nuclear reactor provides as much as 1000 wind turbines?! Think again!

Even the best placed wind turbines, such as those in Altamont Pass in California have *notoriously* low capactity factors - on average, 20% or less.

Even if all of the wind turbines were 1 megawatt apiece, they would have to install five times that number just to reach the equivalent, integrated electricity production! We're talking *at least* 8000 wind turbines, and that assumes we've perfected some sort of storage mechanism so that the electricity supply matches the time of demand - a very generous assumption indeed!

Little comment about Wind Energy Costs :

- It is not true Wind Energy is cheaper than Nuclear energy. It was (counciosuly ommited ?), that Nukes can operates up to 100% during the year, while wind turbines operates about 20% of a common day. So The U$ 4 million/turbine (3 Mwe?) cost need to be multiplied by a factor to be compared with nukes (to generate same amount of energy - averaged basis). Simply put, change the figures mentioned from $35.79 vs $50.13 to ($35.79*5 vs $50.13). The final value of 0.178U$/Kw is close to what is mentioned on : http://www.geofisica.cl/English/E%20alt.htm