Comments on: U.S. Renewable Energy Exceeds Nuclear Power

By: Vincent

Vincent — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:13:16 +0000

For the construction price of one nuclear plant, you could outfit 1000 homes with solar panels. Those would require no employees, no additional fuel that badly pollutes the environment just to dig from the ground, cause no wide spread contamination of the environment from normal operations, and don’t permanently destroy whole regions when they are damaged by an earthquake or other disaster. Our nuclear plants are mostly over 30 and some over 40 years old, are dilapidated and should have been decommissioned at 20 years as they were designed to be. Now, greedy energy companies are trying to have them re-licensed, even though they represent social insanity and suicide. From the mining of uranium and its associated venting of radioactive strontium gas and pollution of ground water with tritium to all the other releases in the fuel cycle, you can’t even justify the acquisition of fuel for Nuke plants from a public health perspective. Add in all the medical costs that have arisen due to the contamination from our “normally operating” nuke plants and they should already be abandoned. The plant near San Diego is sitting on a fault line and next to one that is under the ocean just like the Japanese fault that caused the tsunami last week. That plant is in proximity to 7 million citizens who can’t adequately evacuate in a disaster. If you like nuclear power, then you should go move next door to that one. It’s time to plumb them up and pump them all full of concrete. I would rather freeze in the dark than glow in the dark.

By: chris

chris — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:47:53 +0000

hey i’m researching nuclear power for chen class and im opposing it. but, in another site i read which was a .info kinda site said that nuclear power accounted for around 20% in 2009, how is 11.1% higher then that. is it actualy at 21.1% or is renewable energy just getting better than what it used to be.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:48:00 +0000

MW does not equal MWhr

Nice try, not true, lost credibility is what you have achieved here.

By: Luke Weston

Luke Weston — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:01:56 +0000

All these graphs and plots with no description of units of any kind on them should immediately raise some skepticism…

By: Rod Davis

Rod Davis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:56:21 +0000

Yeah……not so much guys. I think you’ve confused capcity with actual production. According to the Energy Information Administration, in April 2009, nuclear power generated 59,129 thousand megawatthours of electricity, 20.45 percent of the total electricity produced in April 2009; hydropower and non-hydro renewables like solar and wind contributed 25,224 (8.73 percent) and 12,252 (4.24 percent) thousand megawatthours, respectively. For the first 4 months of 2009, nuclear generated 263,755 thousand megawatthours which is 21.04 percent; hydro and non-hydro renewables generated 87,799 (7 percent) and 46,038 (3.67 percent) thousand megawatthours, respectively.

Looks like nukes are still producing way more power.

By: jfarmer9

jfarmer9 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:21:04 +0000

Interesting, does this mean that renewable energy sources are now a more mature industry than nuclear and thus do not require the mandated subsidies that are being proposed in the Waxman-Markey legislation. It would be nice to see a level playing field for all sustainable energy sources including nuclear.

I feel Waxman-Markey bill’s provision to require utilities to insure that 30% of their power distribution will come from renewable sources will eventually lead to the use of more fossil fuels. The reason is that nuclear, though a sustainable form of energy, does not meet the Waxman-Markey definition of renewable. This combined with the unreliability of wind and solar to produce power during peak demand and the inefficiency of solar and wind on a cost per kilowatt basses will lead to more fossil fuel use. What is the country going to do if we fail to meet the Waxman-Markey lofty “renewable” goal? Turn off the lights. True it is a solution but who thinks the US is in a mood to cut back on jobs when we can just produce more power with the use of fossil fuels.

You can not build a nuclear plant overnight you need at a minimum of at least seven years in the US to get a plant up and running. This is the time utilities need to start planning. Why not change the definition in Waxman-Markey to sustainable power and up the requirement from 30% to 60%. This way all carbon free producers are on a level playing field and the free market will decide which carbon free sources are more efficient at producing power. One needs to realize that in the end it is all about producing carbon free power.

Viva the nuclear renaissance,

Jfarmer9