USA: Now with double the nukes!

www.azstarnet.com: Key senator calls for 100 new reactors in 20 years:

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called Wednesday for doubling the number of nuclear reactors nationwide, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

…

“I am convinced it should happen because conservation and nuclear power are the only real alternatives we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to clean the air, deal with climate change and keep good jobs from going overseas.”

…

The country’s 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, while most of its energy comes from carbon-producing coal. The last reactor to come online was the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor in Spring City, Tenn., in 1996.

Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander’s proposal “reckless.”
“Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution,” Smith said. “New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for.”

…

Alexander said he would increase federal loan guarantees now being offered for the first four reactors to as many as 12 to “jump start” the nuclear revival.

Fascinating. Is the Senator saying that all we need to do is rely on conservation and nuclear powered electricity to deal with climate change? He says they’re our “only real alternatives”, so clearly they’re enough to deal with the problem all by themselves or the battle is already lost. Perhaps the Senator should re-think that particular sound bite.

And as for Steve Smith’s comments, I would add that a much greater use of nuclear power also creates a much greater dependency on shifting and therefore less reliable and less predictable water supplies for cooling. This is a point that’s often lost in such discussions: Many people point out that nuclear power plants have a high water draw, but not nearly that much in terms of water consumption, which is unarguably true, and is typically cited to show that nuclear plants don’t make as big a dent in water supplies as some people assume. But the flip side to that situation is that regardless of how the water is used (merely a draw vs. gone-for-good consumption), the plant still requires that flow to operate. Build a nuclear plant, and you’re assuming that you can predict a viable source of cooling water at that location for the next 50 years, likely longer.[1]

I would also like to know what Senator Alexander’s long-term plan is for the additional 6 tons of nuclear waste these new plants will produce (in addition to the 6 tons generated by our current plants) every day.

[1] In the US, nuclear plants are typically licensed for 40 years, but many have recently been renewed for an additional 20 years.