Florida, the sunshine state, should start using that sunshine for sun power generation instead of creating extremely dangerous nuclear waste. The cost of storing the radioactive toxic waste is expensive and the plants have a relatively short life because the core building materials change properties under constant nuclear bombardment. The upside is it doesn't burn fossil fuel, that's it. If you live in Florida, get ready to pay higher power rates because the nuclear industry has a lock on your politicians.

Nuclear power also has the advantage of being more suited for base load applications. You can't control the sun or the wind, unfortunately.

Waste can be reprocessed and used again to generate more power. The better to squeeze more energy out of it.

IMHO you want a mix of Nukes for base load and then wind and gas (to balance the wind) or other renewables.

Keep the oil for transport, keep as much gas as possible for heating houses.

You can add solar as you wish and any other renewables you can get your hands on.

Then add smart chargers so you can charge the PHEVs when the wind blows or at night.

Also conserve as much as possible, CFLs, and just turn stuff off / down.

The problems with Nukes are the planning and comissioning take so long + the greens have done a great job of painting them as the spawn of satan. So people in the west are scared of them.

Which will be sad for the people of Bangladesh.

The waste will have to be stored in big holes till we can figure out better things to do with it.

You can conserve as much as you like, but you still have to generate power or end up like North Korea.

Lad,

Solar works out to about 8x the cost of nuclear power, including the used fuel storage charge that the utility must pay the government.

You can argue that the fee paid is insufficient but, if it is, it is the government's problem; not the utility. (Personally, I believe the funds collected to date have been more than sufficient to commission and operate Yucca Mountain.)

The only electrical generation that is lower cost than nuclear is hydroelectric (hard to come by in a flat state) and coal with it's CO2 emissions.

Yucca Mountain is the US baseline waste disposal solution today. There is a far superior solution: fast reactors. A fast reactor can burn as fuel the really nasty transuranic material created in today's water cooled reactors. We should start transitioning to fast reactors within 50 years or so.

I'm hearing that we only have 70 years of uranium left at current usage rates...if this is true, there is little point in this.

Looking further into the future. Florida needs to hook up with other states that have better renewable resources to generate electricity. Experiment with biomass to electricity schemes with its great growing season. Cut peak demand with photovoltaics.

Also make ground source or groundwater source heat pumps mandatory for all new buildings...cut air conditioning energy use by half. Rebate retrofits to ground source heavily. Of course insulate better to keep the cool itself.

Is there a measure called "Nuclear Signature" that mimics "Carbon Signature"?
What kind and how much after-stuff will be handed down to future generations from more nuclear power plants?
If they can really accurately quantify the long term impact it may make sense to go nuclear. If they can not accurately predict all long-term costs and issues then they should consider solar. Would make a record-breaking solar project.

Too cheap to meter! Safe! Renewables don't work!

Signed,
The 50s

Micheal:

We can extend that via Breeder Reactors and reprocessing.

I think that a combination of geothermal and nuclear for base load, wind/hydro/solar for peaking, possibly with the use of sodium-suSlfide flow batteries for storage.

It should also be noted that FPL is the largest producer of wind and solar renewable energy in the US. If anyone would check their web site it would be apparent why FPL is not developing large scale wind and solar in Florida. It took me less than a minute.

Nuclear generation still enjoys limits of liability under Price-Anderson and many other subsidies. utility companies and our government are obsessed with generating more electricity instead of investing in efficiency and conservation. According to EIA, the south atlantic states use about 2800 kwh/household-year for refrigerators and freezers and 2000 kwh/household-year for hot water heating. Efficient refrigerators and freezers can reduce this consumption by 50% easily and solar water heaters should be able to provide the majority of energy to heat water. Along with other efficient appliances, insulating homes and efficient lighting these efficiency schemes would have less cost and environmental impact than nuclear power.

It should also be noted that FPL is the largest producer of wind and solar renewable energy in the US. If anyone would check their web site it would be apparent why FPL is not developing large scale wind and solar in Florida. It took me less than a minute.

Yet, strangely, you don't have a link!

Jack:

Here's a link for you.

"As of January 2007, the company's wind-power portfolio consists of more than 4,000 net megawatts." They have windfarms in 15 states.

Ah, a separate company (FPL Energy LLC) within the FPL group that has holdings nationwide. Not exactly the same thing as the Florida utility (Florida Power and Light) owning such things.

Thanks for the link.

just one hurricane with 170mph winds and those turbine blades will be producing a LOT of power :) Yes, sunshine we have lots off.. and eventually roofs will be tiled with solar cells selling power back to FPL.. not even nukes can keep up with the growth in South Florida.. and eventually we will need power for desalinating plants that can be powere by the solar cells ..

We are paying $200-$400 per month year round for power now so we could use some low cost solar cells.

We are paying $200-$400 per month year round for power now so we could use some low cost solar cells.

The household monthly average for Florida is $148.

WOW
This is good news, more power and no new GHGs. I am just baffled about what some of your motives are. Is the goal to slow and eventually stop global warming? Nuclear does that. It seems some of you have no interest in supporting something that is affordable and carbone neutral. You are taking advantage of global warming to move forward with other social change objectives, mainly lowering our standard of living by starving us of electricity and energy. Wake up. People against nuclear plants have no interest in stopping global warming!

In Ireland, we are using about 4000 KwH / Year (for a family of 6) after a mild energy efficiency drive.
[ CFLs, turn things off ] [ in a 70 year old house ]

You can go a long way with conservation.

After that, you makes your choices.

Also a hurricane with 170 mph winds will probably rip the blades off the windmills (sad).

I would like to see Rankine cycle turbines recovering the waste heat at nuclear power plants.

Below is FPL's pre-school explanation of the workings of a nuke.

1 Tiny parts of the uranium, known as atoms, are made to split, or fission.

2 During fission, even smaller particles of the atom, called neutrons, are released.

3 The neutrons strike more uranium atoms, resulting in the release of heat needed to generate electricity.

"Solar works out to about 8x the cost of nuclear power"

Solar PV maybe, but nanosolar are working on that and solar-sterling cycle is on track to be cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear.

Just a couple of points. The cost of storing spent fuel is not very high in relation to the amount of electricity produced from the fuel. The volume of spent fuel is quite small per unit of power produced. For example say you produce one Megawatt hour of power by burning fossil fuel. All the fuel goes out the stack and into the air. But what is the cost? Unknown, but what if the air polution increases the incidence of sickness - breathing problems and cancer?
So what seems cheap in the short run may not be cheap in the long run. But lets go back to the production of a Megawatt hour of power from nuclear. The spent fuel is stored and does not polute the air. How is it stored? Dry storage units - sealed stainless steel tanks - holding several spent fuel assemblies, are placed in concrete storage racks that allow air to flow past the tank. This system is passive, so the cost once the storage unit is built, to store is very low.
And in the future, should US policy change, and reprocessing allowed, the useful stuff - fuel and isotopes for medical or industrial use - could be extracted. The remaining volume of highly radioactive long lived material would be less that 5% of the original unreprocessed material. This could be stored cheaply in a long term storage facility like Yucca Mountain, or if technology develops to safely launch it off planet, sent to the Sun where it will bother no one.

However, no new nukes are going to be built in the USA until a long term storage facility like Yucca mountain opens for business and actual fuel is being transported to the site. This was what was promised to the investors in the first generation of plants but the people of the United States did not keep their word. And although Yucca Mountain is supposed to open at some time in the future, until it or other long term storage facility does, no nukes will be built in my opinion.

If you believe the burning of fossil fuel is significantly contributing to warming of our planet, move to Nevada, and elect a government that will facilitate the opening of Yucca Mountain.

John, you do not explain why 'I would like to see Rankine cycle turbines recovering the waste heat at nuclear power plants.' Maybe it is because you did not take thermo in college. What is do plan to do with the warm water?

Does anyone have a link to actual solar production in Florida? It is interesting that Jack wanted a link but found some silly reason not to like it.

I will explain it to the terminally stupid. Florida does not have good solar or wind resources to provide electricity to the many retired people that require air conditioning in the summer. Glen, did you check to see if people in Florida have heard of energy efficient appliances and factored that into the future demand for electricity.

Mahonj, Florida is not Ireland. If the government has to tell you that turning off lights when you are not in the room will save power, I am afraid the lesson will not stick very long. I am not against conservation just really really stupid suggestionss that conserving is a reason not build power plants.

These aren't brand new plants, Turkey point and the island are old. I've never used non-nuclear power in my adult life living here, and the rates aren't bad and the reliability has been great.

I worry about the time on waste, but nuclear works.

glen + mahonj,

You are correct. The cost to implement effective energy conservation strategies is much less than building more and more production capacities.

There are 1001 ways to reduce our energy consumption by 50%+. Our new SEER 23 Inverter type heat pump is not only much more quiet but is more than twice as efficient as our older unit. A simple $75 electronic timer can switch the 4 KW hot water heater on during night hours when electric energy is available at lower rates. Programable electronic thermostats can reduce the heating and air conditioning bill by as much as 30% while increasing the comfort level.

The conservation list goes on and on... to 1001 ways.

With all the money saved you can implement more ways such as better windows, doors + more insulation etc.

It would seem investing in conservation makes sense but not enough folks are buying conservation items like Low E windows. Now if a fee was charged for electricity use above X for houses that do not have Low E windows, and the fee would pay for the windows in 5 years, then in 5 years you could use the money collected and install the windows. Call it the Low E window saving account fund. Non-taxable, and invested like a 401 K. If a utility offered such a program, a vendor would come out, measure the house, determine the cost to purchase and install, and then the utility would start charging the fee. Available only to owners of the property.

And when the vendor comes out he offers to replace all the incondensant bulbs with CFBs for $1.00 per bulb.
And then we could outlaw swimming pools and gee, only 998 more great ideas to go.

Florida, the sunshine state, should start using that sunshine for sun power generation...

Despite its nickname, Florida's solar potential is not all that great. Consider the map of the US linked below; Kansas would appear to have significantly more potential than Florida. Altitude above sea level and average humidity levels count for more than you might think in terms of usable solar flux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg