Charlie Rose

truth_hates_delay  03/26/2011 06:07 AM Report

ask230: Thanks for your reply.

As we have discovered, recycling programs only work if they are used and even when they are, they consume energy, produce waste and are associated with costs. Recycling has a limited role, but better yet, don't produce it in the first place. The amoral marketplace, be it for paper,glass or plutonium or uranium, opts away from recycle/resue for virgin material or going back to the mine more often then not.

The nuclear fuel cycle you refer to is so costly, polluting,and dangerous, throughout its course, that it's not acceptable to the marketplace AND the well-being of workers handling it or the environment we call Earth.

Again, your proposal is either, partially in place, largely theoretical or still a proposal some time far off into the future. Moreover, there is sooo much spent (still loaded with radioactivity)fuel that it would take an impractical amount of time and resources to re-process it.

Meanwhile an irreversible scar of harm, real and potential, is left from the mine, to the reactor, rod & core casings, to the partial reprocessing site, and the dump (perhaps off the coast of Somalia, Italy, or a parking lot in a small town in Russia) or some other remote eternal resting place near some very poor impotent population (until it is scattered somewhere else).

My understanding is that only about 10% of the used fuel sent to Russia from France is returned. The rest is essentially waste that is too dangerous and costly to reprocess or purify. The 96% yield is theoretical, but not widely practiced, if at all.

ask230  08/09/2010 11:52 AM Report

truth_hates_delay: Most nuclear material can be recycled. When the nuclear reactions are complete, 95% of the material coming OUT of the reactor is comprised of the same good plutonium that went into it. And that plutonium can be seperated from the other 5% junk and used in future reactions. As for the other 5%, it can be stored in "cask" containers that cannot be breached by even some of the strongest conventional weapons. The Eurpeans have been doing it for some time and have never had any of the problems (terrorism, theft, acidental explosion, supporting nuclear weapons proliferation, etc.) that the anti-nuclear contingency has warned against.

lhoughrose  07/24/2010 02:23 AM Report

While not the ideal energy source, nuclear fission is presently the only available alternative to fossil fuels that can provide a significant percentage of our energy needs.

The wind does not always blow, and there is no means to store the energy for use during periods when there is insufficient wind. Likely any batteries developed in the future (future being the important word) will present their own pollution consequences.

Solar power is inefficient, expensive and provides power only while the sun is visible in the sky. This presents the same energy storage problem that wind energy presents. The manufacture of solar cells is also energy intensive. Manufacture of solar cells creates large amounts of highly toxic waste, including heavy metals.

There are also environmental consequences to covering vast areas of the earth with solar collectors, destroying the life beneath them.

Beyond current fossil fuel consumption, the planet's resources and environment will not withstand fossil fuel energy production by the entire world population at the per-capita rate that the US consumes energy. Shall we tell the rest of the world to arrest their economic development?

Since we have failed to develop sufficient alternatives, nuclear fission is the only alternative to fossil fuels that can be employed to satisfy our energy needs within the foreseeable future. The alternate solution to solving the world's energy production problems is to limit the world-wide per capita energy consumption to that which will only support a lifestyle much diminished from that which we now enjoy. Sufficient restraint and reduction of world-wide energy consumption is simply not politically possible.

Alternatively, we can continue to burn coal to produce electricity, falsely expecting wind and solar power to make a significant contribution. In doing so we must ignore the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. We must also continue to ignore the releases of heavy metals such as mercury and, yes, radioactive isotopes of thorium into the environment that result from burning coal. We must also ignore the environmental effects of mining coal, such as acid mine drainage.

Natural gas has been put forth as an alternative that pollutes less than coal. We can drill and franc more gas wells the earth until the potable water table is destroyed, only to continue to produce more carbon emissions for the earth to absorb.

We can continue to subsidize generation of power by solar cells and wind, ignoring the environmental impact of these technologies, while waiting for the technology needed to make these alternatives significant and economical.

Meanwhile, China and India will build nuclear power plants deriving the benefits, and the U.S.'s energy sources will be noncompetitive by comparison.

Are nuclear fission reactors the ideal energy choice? No, but nuclear fission reactors are the only available alternative to fossil fuel generation at present that has the capacity to satisfy a meaningful percentage of our energy requirements.

What is needed is recognition of the facts, RATIONAL discussion, RATIONAL decisions and development of a RATIONAL plan to address our energy and environmental needs without undue economic influence from any industry. This has NOT occurred, placing us at risk. Instead we focus on currently unachievable utopian schemes through which we are falsely led to believe we will obtain the energy we need without negative consequences.

I suggest that, as I have, you begin to contact the elected "leaders" of this country to demand the development of a workable national energy policy, not the least of which should be development of sustainable nuclear fusion reactors which promises the ideal solution, providing limitless energy without pollution.

Concerning safety, for 1999 please compare:

A. The number of people killed in the pursuit and use of fossil fuels (coal mining accidents, occupational diseases from burning coal, fatal oil well drilling accidents, early deaths resulting from exposure to fossil fuel pollution, deaths caused by violent weather, assuming that even only one of the more violent weather occurrences can be attributed to climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, and deaths due to starvation from crop failure, assuming that only one failure was due to climate change from carbon dioxide.

B. Deaths resulting from the nuclear power generation.

Normalize A and B based upon the number of KWH of energy produced by both means and extrapolate the results to calculate the deaths per KWH-year for each power source.

Please let results will inform you concerning which source of electric power is safer. The result will be that nuclear power is safer than power derived from burning coal. Bear in mind that the results are based upon old reactor designs which are inherently much less safe than current designs.

mhducey  07/09/2010 08:01 AM Report

All praise of nuclear power begins with the proviso "If well managed..." Ms. Lauvergeon estimates that 100-150 new rectors will be built in the next 20 years. The question then is, "Who will manage them?"

Avoiding all hysteria, the achilles heel of the nuclear power solution to energy shortage is the quality of mangement required.

In your recent interview, I don't remember that topic coming up. Since in the real world, it is absolutely key, hopefully in future interviews, you will dig into it thoroughly.

truth_hates_delay  07/07/2010 07:14 PM Report

Mr. Rose, why have a super wealthy CEO here to promote the struggling Areva to US & the powerbrokers? Multi-national CEO PROFITS ABOVE PEOPLE & ENVIRONMENT mentality of BP, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, AIG, CEOS (ie unaccountability to you, me & Earth) have proven to be the greatest national security risk to this country & the world. US regulatory bodies are ultimately corrupted by them. Such people CANNOT provide honest debate. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY BAILOUTS will rival bailouts for financial & coal/oil disasters. The cost of a new Areva reactor would be as much as $8 billion,2Xs the price offered to FINLAND. Areva, of which the French gov't has a 90% share, has affiliations with multinational/military giants Siemens & Westinghouse. In June 2010, Standard & Poor's downgraded Areva’s debt rating to BBB+.

NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE OR COST EFFECTIVE & WONT DISCUSS REAL COST

Nuclear Power costs are largely externalized, ie passed on to taxpayers, & disaster costs are not factored in. Poor countries bare the worst burden & pollution & least able to cope. Listen to physicist Michio Kaku or the Union For Concerned Scientists . THE REAL COST OF NUCLEAR POWER includes billion$ of dollars in cost overruns, massive tax handouts, gov't backed loan guarantees & loan default risk > 50%. REAL COSTS realize the entire waste stream, from mining uranium, transport, processing, waste, liability & mine & plant decommissioning.

See here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

For humorous views about nuclear, listen to the Le Show with Harry Shearer. http://feeds.kcrw.com/kcrw/ls

truth_hates_delay  07/07/2010 07:13 PM Report

Using old nuclear weapon & nuclear waste (reprocessing) to fuel these plants actually produces greater volumes of unsafe radioactive nuclear waste. Disposal of low level / depleted waste (still radioactive) is unresolved, if not unsolvable, for ALL nuclear power programs. Nuclear fuel CANT be burned into nothing as Lauvergeon purports. Furthermore, burning nuclear fuel will drive the markets to produce/ transport radioactive material, which may eventually end up or pass thru your state/ town.

See Areva's history of shipping nuclear waste to Russia? Of the tons of nuclear waste sent to Russia, about 10% returns to France recycled. Where's the rest? Areva's practices in Siberia & Nigeria wouldn't be tolerable in France or the US. Elsewhere, news of nuclear waste being dumped in the ocean or buried secretly are suppressed but exist. Want the Utah, Colorado & Saskatchewan uranium mining history as your own?

truth_hates_delay  07/07/2010 07:12 PM Report

First question should be, WHAT IF a serious nuclear accident happens? What is Areva's safety plan & record? Managing radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. Nuclear waste is in 1000s of tons & growing. Over the next decade, (too late for our climate) the world is expected to build 180 nuclear plants. Reducing waste isn't enough. Areva's MOX fuel line is costly, problematic & yields unsafe nuclear material. What is known about cancer & nuclear waste? Look into thyroid cancer & lymphoma. Remember Chernobyl.

REMant  07/07/2010 02:59 PM Report

I have the strong feeling that the primary reason why we are still dependent on oil and coal is not so much because it is cheaper, or that we are afraid of anti-nuclear activists, but because we haven't really been able to afford the investment required. Our dilapidated infrastructure is well-known, and while we have been able to muster investment to build wireless and fiber networks, not to the extent other countries have. Not saving for the future we have condemned ourselves to the higher costs and environmental damage seen in developing countries.

robdverity  07/07/2010 02:32 PM Report

If the "Frenchy" lady is right that nuclear wastes are (totally?) recyclable than nuke-energy should be expanded in the US. But even with minimal wastes it should require thorough study of its disposal.

Apropos of nothing, how do you forget the 'femaleness' of a distaff CEO? Every once in a while you even listen.