Pantagraph.com | Letters | Nuclear power too costly and too dangerous

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

gnjaxon wrote on Jul 10, 2007 4:53 PM:

" I read Gerald Marsh's opinion. Blaming corn for the rise in food prices is quite a bit of a stretch. Costs are going up because the transportation costs (read gas and diesel) has doubled in the last two years. After personnel the biggest cost to our company is fuel cost. "

Who Does the Counting? wrote on Jul 9, 2007 10:13 PM:

" It is total BS put out by the wind companies themselves that only the "old style California" wind farms kill birds! They have only successfully spun the numbers on the current kills, employing local "experts" that can easily be manipulated (can you say Angelo Caparella and the Sierra Clubs?) The Mississippi Flyway is one of the MAJOR bird migratory routes. Have you read the Pantagraph articles this week on the resurgence of the eagle population in Illinois? The same old arguments are put out by each wind company to dupe the public into accepting these collectors of government subsidies. You actually believe it when they tell you birds will fly 500 feet above the towers? I suppose the fish that they eat are delivered to them from the streams and rivers at that height by UPS? Think independantly from what you are being sold by the wind advocates. They have their financial bottom line at interest, not the well being or profitability of the communities where these go in. "

Thanks Sandra! wrote on Jul 9, 2007 9:25 PM:

" I know it wasn't your intent, but your letter has given a lot of people the opportunity to provide some balance to the ridiculous anti-nuke propaganda you espouse. Write again soon! "

Dan wrote on Jul 9, 2007 9:04 PM:

" And let's not forget that it was Jimmy Carter who blocked the reprocessing of spent fuel in the US. Think that had any impact on foreign oil dependence? "

We Need Nuclear Plants wrote on Jul 9, 2007 8:06 PM:

" We need nuclear plants because Ethanol has pushed the price of corn from $1.50 to $4.00 a bushel and it takes fossil fuels to process the corn into Ethanol. Biodiesel requires an added 88 million acres of soybeans to produce 10% of our diesel needs. Wind farms take up 530 times the land used by the average gas fired plant. (Source: Gerald Marsh, physicist) "

Need More Nuclear Plants wrote on Jul 9, 2007 7:58 PM:

" We need more nuclear power plants not less of them. Ethanol has driven the price of corn from $1.50 to $4.00 a bushel and it takes other energy resources to refine the corn into Ethanol. Biodiesel requires 88 million added acres of soybeans for 10% of our diesel needs. Wind farms take up 530 times the land used by the average gas fired plant. (Source: Gerald Marsh, physicist) "

Eric Reside wrote on Jul 9, 2007 7:31 PM:

" I am a student at the University of Illinois studying Nuclear Engineering and would like to comment on a process pretty much unknown to most Americans, spent fuel reprocessing. Current spent fuel is made up of a great deal of heavy metals which have very long half lives The idea is to the old fuel and separate out the fissile material (uranium, etc.) from the heavy metals. Current reactors could reuse the unused uranium and next generation reactors could use the heavy metals as fuel. The process is called pyroprocessing. "

Risk Management wrote on Jul 9, 2007 6:30 PM:

" All you insurance people should recognize that term. So far, we have been very effective at managing the risks associated with nuclear power. With all the crap spewed into the air by coal, oil, and gas fired plants (never mind global warming), we'd need to have dozens of Chernobyl type events to equal the devastation and death created by fossil fuels. Nukes are the way to go if you wish to maintain anything faintly resembling your current lifestyle. "

DeSegnac wrote on Jul 9, 2007 6:12 PM:

" Giberish, pure and simple ! "

to: The Eagle Has Landed wrote on Jul 9, 2007 2:49 PM:

" even the Seirra Club stopped raising its feather about the wind farm here. the large birds, eagles, etc migrate mostly along bodies of water. so the big rivers ,illinois and mississippi. they servive on the fish in those waters. very few migrate through this area. when they do migrate they fly at levels much higher than the 420 foot turbines. the wind turbines that have been said to kill birds are the ol style in california. they have more blades like the ol windmills on old farms. they spin much faster than the ones that are being put up today. if these turbines are to high and in the way of migrating birds than all the building in illinois over one story high should be removed or shorten. "

gnjaxon wrote on Jul 9, 2007 2:09 PM:

" There have been several emergencies declared with nuclear power. You can check them at www.nrc.gov. None of them have been near the disaster Chernobyl was, but several have resulted in the deaths of at least one individual. The most recent was in 2006. "

Smapdi wrote on Jul 9, 2007 12:04 PM:

" Too costly? Don't know - but I'd doubt that. Certainly when compared to our favorite elixir (oil) and the international racketeering (and war) job that's been going on there for the past century. Too dangerous? I suppose you could put it that way. But the biggest danger is that we simply can't be trusted with the technology. We'll either mismanage it or exploit it and in doing so, make a big old mess of ourselves. Nuclear absolutely could work and be the answer... if we weren't human. Just imagine if all the time and money we've pumped into nuclear weapons research and production was used for advancing the materials, production, storage, waste handling, infrastructure and processes of power generation. "

David Miller wrote on Jul 9, 2007 11:09 AM:

" Ms. Lindberg is an avowed anti-nuclear! Ms. Lindberg is the founding member of No New Nukes, Central Illinois’ Grassroots Anti-Nuclear Activist Organization. Nuclear Power is the power of the SUN! We only have fission nuclear now but a 100 years from now nearly all power will be fusion nuclear. The waste issue is a non-starter. You might ask what waste? We have been producing nuclear power for 30 years and where has all the waste gone? We now store it on site! The amount is so small it takes essentially no space when compared to other forms of energy generation. In fact if the uranium is left in the ground it still will release its daughters into the environmental in the same amounts until it decays completely. So why not recover the useable, non-CO2 emitting energy? Ms. Lindberg apparently prefers Coal which actually contributes more radiation to the environment let alone the billions of tons of CO2. "

Why not go with........ wrote on Jul 9, 2007 1:26 AM:

" nuclear power? It's proven to be clean and a wonderful source of power. My husband worked on the Clinton nuclear plant when it was being built. Until I learned how it is built and how it is contained, I was scared to death of nuclear power. I don't worry about it anymore because I believe we are at a much higher risk of worse things occurring to kill us than I am of a leak at a nuclear plant. How many deadly incidents have we had because of a nuclear leak? Not very darned many!! "

John Bill wrote on Jul 9, 2007 12:38 AM:

" I don't know what all subsidies these people are talikng about? Go to the DOE website, you won't see a whole lot of wind subsidies from the Bush administration. But Nuclear gets billions in hidden subsidies. There is a government insurance policy just for nuke power plants, free. If they had to pay for this insurance with a private company it would cost billions. The cost from a single meltdown would bankrupt most insurers. "

HEY...One word... wrote on Jul 8, 2007 10:46 PM:

" Check your facts before you post them. You couldn't be more incorrect. And by the way, can you name another significant plant mishap? I don't think so, because they are very safe and very effective. [One word..." For the pro-nuke types: Chernobyl. No one lives within 100 miles of that zone, nor ever will. End of story. ] "

Couldn't disagree more wrote on Jul 8, 2007 10:43 PM:

" " Environmentalists block nuclear waste storage plans, then complain there is no plan to store waste. They complain about global warming, but fight the only viable technology that provides an alternative to fossil fuel. They promote conservation, but conservation will not generate 1 watt of electricity as our economy grows. And they promote "alternative" energy, ie. unreliable solar or wind power which has yet to eliminate the need for even 1 coal fired plant. Nuclear is proven, reliable, and important. Europe knows it, Japan knows it, China knows it, Russia knows it. Even Iran, India, Pakistan, and North Korea know it. Evidently, it is only America who doesn't get it. " "

Kudos Sandra! wrote on Jul 8, 2007 2:52 PM:

" I live in the shadow of the Clinton Power Plant and I am sick and tired of breathing in all the noxious odors and drinking poison water that this filthy thing creates. I wish we had about 10 clean, efficient, coal burning plants in my back yard instead. As everyone knows, no one gets hurt by using coal to generate electricity. Except maybe a few dozen miners here and there, that is. But that's a small price to pay for the beautiful strip mines created and the miles and miles of unmarked tunnels under the ground all over this great state from generations of coal mining! HOORAY COAL!!!! "

Arthur Treacher wrote on Jul 8, 2007 12:26 PM:

" The Physicist posits the following argument: "Most people don't know that while nuclear power makes about 20% of our electricity, they use 5% of our electricity just to make the enriched uranium fuel. " Is this true or is the physicist playing fast and loose with the figures? Since he gives no citations, allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he is using out of date information. Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer and an operator of an enrichment facility asys otherwise:"It takes about 100,000 SWU (separative Work Units) of enriched uranium to fuel a typical 1,000 megawatt commercial reactor for one year." Centrifuges use 190 kw per SWU, so what we have is a reactor that provides 1000Mw of electricity for a year at an average capacity factor of 90% yielding 7.884 million mega watts. It takes 100,000 SWU at .190 Mw per SWU or 19,000 MW to provide that fuel. This gives us .2% energy , a reasonable outcome, I should think. "

Arthur wrote on Jul 8, 2007 11:42 AM:

" Lets see if the physicist is spinning clockwise or counter clockwise. I was talking about proven reserves of high concentration. How does comparing proven reserves compare with all of the mass of the earth's crust. Would the physicist have us believe that all of the earth's crust have been explored? I would further argue that given that there is no need to discover reserves in excess of our capacity to mine them, there is a very good chance that further discoveries are in the offing. Kudos to the physicist on pointing out the English spelling of "tonnes". Well spotted, Sir. However, the further conclusion is wrong. We Brits have a Westinghouse reactor, similar to the American models and the highest concentration used in the fuel rods is 5%, some of the rods are enriched to a lesser amount. "

Matt wrote on Jul 8, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Okay Physicist and Arthur are having an interesting discussion. Arthur says 10 pounds a day is used in a nuke plant. Physicist and Arthur both seem to agree on the 4,000,000 ton amount, but I'm gonna be a pessimist and cut that in half. That's 4,000,000,000 pounds. So, that is 400,000,000 generating days for one plant. Of course, theres gonna be a lot of power plants. (I did some research on world electricity consumption, about 20,000 TWh/year, and figured around 2500 plants to meet the need*, but lets be pessimistic and double that since consumption is climbing.) 400,000,000 divided by 5000 plants equals 80,000 days, or over 200 years of energy for the world. I'm sure I made some mistakes in these calculations so feel free to correct them, but I felt some perspective was necessary. (*World usage figures came from BP, nuclear plant generation figures came from the EIA) "

One word... wrote on Jul 8, 2007 10:58 AM:

" For the pro-nuke types: Chernobyl. No one lives within 100 miles of that zone, nor ever will. End of story. "

Physicist wrote on Jul 8, 2007 8:45 AM:

" To Arthur, the Earth's crust assuming only an average thickness of ten miles has about 42,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of material. If you want to say 4,000,000 tons is an abundant amount, I question your use of adjectives. 4,000,000 tons of uranium would only make a cube 62 yards on a side. It could easily fit in most football fields. I notice you spell the plural of ton the British way. Most American nuclear reactors need a higher concentration of U-235 in order to run, that's why they call it enriched uranium and takes an enormous amount of energy to do so. Most people don't know that while nuclear power makes about 20% of our electricity, they use 5% of our electricity just to make the enriched uranium fuel. "

wat Tyler wrote on Jul 8, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Yet another deceptive and misleading analogy from No New Nukes. This little propaganda piece would have you believe that Amergen, owners of Clinton Power Station, are indifferent or negligent about their responsibilities toward their spent nuclear fuel. The fact is that they and all other nuclear utilities are constrained by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, whereby the Federal government imposes the duty on the utilities to collect money for the Nuclear Waste Fund from you, the rate payer, and the Department of Energy builds a repository and begins storing the spent fuel by 1998. Mindless opposition from so-called environmentalists and opportunistic politicians prevented that from happening, not sloth on the part of the utilities. This canard, typical of No New Nukes is yet another example of their willingness to bend the truth. "

!! wrote on Jul 8, 2007 7:41 AM:

" next you will want proper stoage for ised wind turbines and their wings !! "

Matt wrote on Jul 7, 2007 11:14 PM:

" To Physicist: You seem to be spinning the numbers too. "

Arthur Treacher responds wrote on Jul 7, 2007 11:05 PM:

" The physicist says I spin my numbers. You decide. According to the people you cover mining, there are over 4,000,000 tonnes of proven reserves , high grade (greater than 2%) uranium. Silver, on the other hand has about 280,000 tonnes of proven reserves and 420,000 reserve tonnes. The physicist responds with a statistic from left field. He further states that reactors are fueled with Uranium 235, which leads me to question if he really is a physicist. In fact reactors are fueled with slightly enriched uranium that consists of about 5% U-235 and 95% U238. I will concede that Uranium is not as abundant as aluminum if you take it as a percentage, but will the physicist concede that the basic argument, that there are abundant known reserves of high grade uranium ore, or will he provide a citation otherwise? "

Why can't we.... wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:37 PM:

" just build more bombs with the "waste". Waste? I say it is a valuable resource. Peace through power!!! By the way, we do need more nuke plants, but wind farms won't hurt either - the bird thing is b.s. "

to Physicist wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:29 PM:

" One of your numbers is off a bit. AL makes up 83,174 ppm of the Earth's crust. "

Physicist wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:45 PM:

" Sorry Arthur, but your numbers are incredibly spun. Aluminum makes up 82,000 parts per million(ppm) in the Earth's crust. Iron makes up 62,000 ppm. Uranium makes up 1.8 ppm in the Earth's crust, but U235 only makes up 0.013 ppm, which is what our nuclear reactors use for fision. Silver makes up 0.08 ppm and is six times more abundant than U-235. But even at 1.8 ppm, I'd hardly call that abundant and very few people would too. "

Arthur Treacher wrote on Jul 7, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Uranium is one of the most abundant materials on earth, it is more abundant than silver. It is not in short supply, in fact we have an extreme overabundance of fuel for our reactors because we are blending down bomb grade uranium and using it for reactor fuel. This means there is less demand for uranium ore and uranium hexafluoride, which means there is less effort expended looking for new sources of uranium, a little bit different than the story painted by this article. Ms. Lindberg's story is plausible, but not true. And it is pointless. Nuclear fuel is a minor part of the expense of a nuclear power plant. The reactor consumes less than 10 pounds a day of fuel, unlike the 4,000 tonnes of coal that a 1000 megawatt fossil plant burns. "

We're in Deep Doo-Doo with Wind Subsidies wrote on Jul 7, 2007 8:11 PM:

" Mick - if there is a finite amount of government energy subsidies and they are being wasted on wind energy, then they are NOT being spent on developing realistic forms of usable energy for our future such as the development of nuclear facitilities and clean-burning Coal Gen. plants. Futhermore, every time a wind turbine is built, it REQUIRES an equal amount of traditional energy installed as a back-up. It is a related issue. As long as anti-nuke freaks can keep the hysteria going over the dangers of nuclear, then real energy solutions are not being addressed and we're chasing our own tails (back to the dog issue) and throwing away our money on non-energy producers like wind. "

mickwd1 wrote on Jul 7, 2007 7:18 PM:

" It seems that in many of the comments readers make, that the farther down the line from the actual article commented on that the subject matter becomes more and more irrelevant and not having to do the point(s) in the article. After reviewing the article, I find nothing nor any comments on wind power or windmills. Maybe, as a practical and useful suggestion, we could stay a bit more focused on the issue and stop arguing and criticizing each other. Let me refresh the issue: nuclear power and nuclear waste. Pros and cons, please. "

Go Wind wrote on Jul 7, 2007 7:05 PM:

" Wind power is a great renewable source. The cleanest thing around. We have farmers agreed to leasing out land. Let's go for it! "

The Sky Is Falling wrote on Jul 7, 2007 5:55 PM:

" Global warming, global cooling, it all changes back and forth every 20 years. You do know the world runs in cycles of heating and cooling don't you. Then again there are people out there that think a hybrid Prius is more efficient then a Hummer. Ironically, the Hummer is actually the better bet on the ecosystem then the hybrid is. "

Doomsayers wrote on Jul 7, 2007 3:25 PM:

" I love the comments condenming the wind farms. Saying that they will NEVER be able to power the needs of one house. As technology exists right now, we are in the infancy stage of developing high capacity storage devices to power your car. Can you honestly say that in 50 years we won't have the technology to store generaged electricty for later use? Man has only been flying for 100 years, and yet we have been to the moon and back. I actually feel sorry for all the backward thinkers here. Those who throw stones at wind power for "flicker, red lights, bird kills, noise" are the same ones that said if man was suppose to fly God would have given him wings 100 years ago. So turn you color tv to the ball game, sit in your airconditioned house and drink your cold beer and complain a while. "

How about wrote on Jul 7, 2007 2:41 PM:

" using the dog "stuff" to create electricity? "

Thank You, Sandra wrote on Jul 7, 2007 1:57 PM:

" Good article, even though there are always those who criticize! "

re wrote on Jul 7, 2007 12:49 PM:

" Evidently Sandra would prefer a dirty coal plant that produces enormous amounts of global warming emissions. Maybe I can save all my dog poo and burn it in my fireplace this winter. Wonder how she would like that? I can keep it piled up in my back yard. "

The Eagle Has Landed wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:16 AM:

" No one gets reliable figures on how many bird and bat kills these large scale wind turbines cause. The companies "hire" their own local "experts" to conduct their post-mortality studies. Who knows how many birds the company has already picked up and disposed of before the local hired experts are allowed onto the property to conduct their "research". In a community so gosh-darned fired up about a captive eagle laying an egg, there seems to be a gross apathy towards the future destruction of our flourishing wild eagle population due to the maddening pace of wind farm construction in our area. "

Local Communities Pay the Price for Wind wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:11 AM:

" Wind energy will never replace any traditional form of energy such as nuclear or coal. Wind alone will not power a single home. When you need it most to power your A/C in the summer, is when there is the least amount of wind energy available. There is no mechanism for storing wind energy. It operates far below the 35% nameplate capacity which the companies promote. Stats. from PawPaw are showing a 9% summertime production rate. It is astronomically expensive and notoriously unreliable so it will never be a serious contender to meet any of our energy needs. If it were not so ridiculously heavily subsidized by our bone-headed government, it would cease to exist because it cannot compete financially in a free market world. It exists on subsidies which make the companies promoting it RICH. Faraway investors reap the benefits while local communities pay the price in reduced property values, noise and light pollution and a stunting of their natural growth and reductions in their farmland production "

An Ill Wind Blows in Illinois wrote on Jul 7, 2007 10:05 AM:

" If wind companies win, every square mile of our rich central farmland will be desecrated by 500 foot tall INDUSTRIAL POWER PLANTS on the richest farmland in the world. It is a LIE that only 1/3 acre will be affected - see the photo of the cropdusting plane in today's paper? How many acres will be left unprotected with 500 foot tall OBSTRUCTIONS in the fields. How many acres in the Paw Paw wind farm has been sprayed aerially since it was built (ZERO). Wind turbines produce little electricity, cost more to upgrade transmission lines and produce reliable electricity with more brownouts. California has brownouts with this heat wave - where is most of the wind production in this county? Why are legislators meeting behind closed doors meetings with utility companies, why did your rates skyrocket 150% - BECAUSE OF WIND! "

No Pollution - You've Got To Be Joking wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Wind farms give us the pollution of light flicker, red flashing strobe lights in the nighttime sky, noise pollution, the pollution of corpses of dead and rotting birds underneath them, not to mention the pollution of runoff due to damage to waterways and the irreversable damage to the farmland due to soil compaction and the footprint left forever of tons and tons of concrete left below the surface, rendering the land forever useless after the one brief moment when a wind tower was constructed there to reap, not wind, but millions of dollars in tax subsidies. Wind farms do NOT even run at the 35% capacity that the companies themselves say but more like 9-15%, meaning that they will NEVER be an economically feasible or practical solution to ANYTHING except lining the pockets of the companies who build them - with taxpayer dollars. "

Justice 4 All wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:41 AM:

" Nuclear energy is safe as long as regulatory guidelines are adhered to strictly. Efficient nuclear energy scares the pants off of the energy companies because it presents the potential to eliminate a large portion of their manipulated profits. Its no different than the alternative fuel fiasco. Oil companies cringe at the thought of an alternative source of power for cars for the same reason. When we, as Americans, wake up and take back possession of our country from those who we have allowed to steal it, we may have lower energy costs, and not until. It's ironic that waste is one of the issues here. What do we do with retired politicians after they are no longer of any use? "

Wind wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:17 AM:

" Wind power is the fastest growing source of electricity production in not only the US, but the world. Billions of tons of coal doesn't have to be mined, processed and transported just to make electricity. The sun heats half the atmosphere 24/7 and never has missed a day in over four billion years. Nuclear plants are shut down for the simplist thing like a leaky hose in Clinton and then shut down for over a month when they refuel, plus they have to scar the Earth to extract the uranium ore and use a tremendous amount of energy processing the fuel. In addition, coal and nukes create over a quadrillion BTUs of heat EVERY year just to run. Windmills are FAR less polluting and is the only rational plan to date for economical and sustainable electricity production. "

I Agree: wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:17 AM:

" With Go Nuke and as to the wind farms, they all have to be backed up by RELIABLE (coal, nuke) power soupces. I'd also like to know if the game wardens ever check to see how many migratory birds are killed by the blades. "

One alternative to nukes wrote on Jul 7, 2007 8:53 AM:

" I wonder how many hamsters running in those exercise wheels it would take to generate 20,000 megawatts. "

I dont get it wrote on Jul 7, 2007 8:46 AM:

" Everyone wants to reduce dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels but whine about solar, nuclear and wind. I guess some are not happy unless they are crying all of the time about something. "

anti-nuke people are biased wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:38 AM:

" I agree with the first commenter. The anti-nuke lobby is so prejudiced against further use of nuclear power, even a solution to the waste problem would not satisfy them. We can't turn back the clock. The industrialized world (and new nations are joining that club every year) will continue to need new sources of energy. We've got to look into every option we have, and until something better and more practical than wind or solar energy comes along we should be thinking about nuclear energy. "

Re: Go Nuke wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:32 AM:

" You tell it like it is. They complain about the wind towers and Nuke plants but still want their airconditioning. "

Nuclear Power is The Best Bet wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:07 AM:

" The way to have nuclear is the same way Japan, France, and most other countries build the plants. The same company, with the same employees should build all of the plants. The waste and fraud that took place during the construction of Clinton was enough to build 3 or 4 more plants. A common design that works, and a skilled workforce could produce safe nuclear power, as it does in Japan and Europe. "

Melvin wrote on Jul 7, 2007 6:04 AM:

" I find it interesting that people say nuclear waste will be a problem for thousands of years. Yes, under current technology that is true. However, it seems quite plausible that sometime in the next century or two, we will have a way to neutralize radioactive waste. I seriously doubt that in the year 2207 nuclear waste will be anywhere near the problem it is today. "

Marry In Haste wrote on Jul 7, 2007 1:47 AM:

" Seems like I hear the same arguments among supporters of wind energy - seems like a rush to a feel-good non-solution with a mad rush to get them approved and constructed before local municipalities catch their breath, see what they got hit with and fully realize the years and years of liability and damage they've agreed to in allowing wind farms into their communities and even encouraging them with enterprise zones, incentives and abatements. Marry in haste, repent at leisure seems to be applicable to the current haste of advancing wind developments in Illinois. "

Go Nuke! wrote on Jul 6, 2007 10:59 PM:

" Environmentalists block nuclear waste storage plans, then complain there is no plan to store waste. They complain about global warming, but fight the only viable technology that provides an alternative to fossil fuel. They promote conservation, but conservation will not generate 1 watt of electricity as our economy grows. And they promote "alternative" energy, ie. unreliable solar or wind power which has yet to eliminate the need for even 1 coal fired plant. Nuclear is proven, reliable, and important. Europe knows it, Japan knows it, China knows it, Russia knows it. Even Iran, India, Pakistan, and North Korea know it. Evidently, it is only America who doesn't get it. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Scientific Graphing Software

Maintenance Professionals

2008 Diet Of The Year: