noteworthy comment

Reader R Brown posted a link in this comment earlier this morning.  The article is so good, I've got to repost it where everyone can see it.

Consider E=mc2.  You know the speed of light is fast.  Now square it -- as fast as fast can be, times itself.  That's how much energy is locked up in any given mass of fuel.  Or, as the article says:

When we burn a gallon of gasoline, one-billionth of the mass of the gasoline is completely transformed into energy. This transformation occurs in the electron shells. The amount is so small that nobody has ever been able to measure it. Yet the energy release is large enough to propel a 2000-pound automobile for 30 miles – a remarkable feat when you think of it.

...One elementary source of comparison is to consider what it takes to refuel a coal plant as opposed to a nuclear reactor. A 1000-MW coal plant – our standard candle - is fed by a 110-car “unit train” arriving at the plant every 30 hours – 300 times a year. Each individual coal car weighs 100 tons and produces 20 minutes of electricity. We are currently straining the capacity of the railroad system moving all this coal around the country. (In China, it has completely broken down.)

A nuclear reactor, on the other hand, refuels when a fleet of six tractor-trailers arrives at the plant with a load of fuel rods once every eighteen months. The fuel rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. They will sit in the reactor for five years. After those five years, about six ounces of matter will be completely transformed into energy. Yet because of the power of E = mc2, the metamorphosis of six ounces of matter will be enough to power the city of San Francisco for five years.

This is what people finds hard to grasp. It is almost beyond our comprehension. How can we run an entire city for five years on six ounces of matter with almost no environmental impact?

Comments

[Hank Rearden]

You've posted several articles on nuclear power now, and I feel obligated to respond. At the point of generation, i.e. the power plant, nuclear power is the environmentalist’s dream. One pound of nuclear fuel could power a Chevy Silverado for 1500 years with no emissions. However, the expense of mining, shipping, refining, and packaging that nuclear fuel is tremendous. And that doesn’t take into account the necessity of constant oversight, continuous operation, perpetual maintenance, ultra-pure water, and all the other tangential expenses associated with safely operating a nuclear reactor core. Furthermore, the environmental impact of uranium mine tailings, radioactive waste vitrification, centrifuge residues, and producing nuclear grade infrastructure for the power plant is tremendous. Sure the plant itself has low emissions, but it’s similar to the “electric car conundrum”. That is, electric cars may have low emissions on the road, but recharging them actually results in higher emissions at the power plant (assuming it’s a coal plant), plus the toxic byproducts of the batteries. While I do think nuclear power is a better solution than coal or natural gas; it’s not nearly as great as fellow conservatives make it out to be.

[John Galt]

Good point, Hank, but remember that each new technology only makes those problems easier to solve. Already you think it's a better deal than coal or gas -- the comparison will only get even better over time.

[Matthew Underwood]

Exactly. If you consider how inefficient coal power was in its earlier generations to that of its application today, it should give a great projection of what nuclear power has the potential to do. Once the market shows an interest in the viability of nuclear power, there's little to hold the scientific community back to not only make the process safer, but more efficient and less costly. Now that the "green" market is responding positively to the electric car, I've seen an exponential rate of increase of the electric cars (mainly hybrid, but it's a stepping stone) on the road. They are safer, cleaner, and more efficient. Just imagine what we could do if we put the same motivation behind the nuclear community.

[R Brown]

Hank said: While I do think nuclear power is a better solution than coal or natural gas; it’s not nearly as great as fellow conservatives make it out to be.

It terms of 'green' technology environmentalists espouse, it still remains the best option out there. The energy gained from the footprint of nuclear far exceeds the footprint of other sources. Not to mention the hope of renewable sources such as solar and wind just doesn't add up mathematically to even scrape current energy needs - as the original article pointed out.