"This only makes sense because we also so happen to have the world's premier nuclear research facility here at the INL."

How does it benefit a private company to build a nuclear reactor in SE Idaho (near INL)? In what ways would this private company be able to call on INL researchers?

In a word: synergy.

You need people of a nuclear background to be able to run the facility.  Sure you can transplant them from other areas, but that is difficult and expensive.  Since this area has a lot of people with that kind of background it would be much easier and cost effective to accomplish.  Furthermore, with all sorts of nuclear shipments that come into and out of the area, it is easier to get equipment and supplies to keep the place going.

This is just one major incentive.  There are others like low taxes and high public appeal that pushed the French company our direction.

Besides, there is the hope that a new influx of radioactive material will mutate Idaho's already famous potatoes even BIGGER!

" Besides, there is the hope that a new influx of radioactive material will mutate Idaho's already famous potatoes even BIGGER!"

Now we're talking!

Maybe a benefit. . . but what about the disposal of the yellowcake? I didn't read anything about that in the Journal article.

Yellowcake is an intermediately refined substance that contains 70-90% uranium, with only the remaining 10-30% of random matter (some radioactive, some not) needing to be disposed of.

Disposal of the byproduct actually isn't that big of a deal.  Like I said, some of it isn't even radioactive.  But storage and transportation of said substance is extremely secure, safe and economical.  The biggest problem with this is evironmental groups (most noteably the Snake River Alliance) that go crazy with the handling of this issue. 

Disposal can be handled at a storage facility on site or transported to the INL or Yucca Mountain for safe keeping.  All options are perfectly viable and secure.

OK - question here - why is nuclear better than wind and/or solar power, both of which are free and basically non-poluting???  Will look forward to a reply or ten!  Wish more folks would pipe up on the group. 

To start, I am not anti-solar or anti-wind; I favor research and development in these areas, as well as others.

Nuclear is popular, as I see it, for a couple of reasons. The first that comes to mind is the idea of on-demand power. A nuclear power plant can run 24 hours a day, regardless of weather conditions. Not only does weather impact solar power output, electricity can only be generated during the day.

The second reason that comes to mind is overall power output. Recent research has helped out with how much power solar panels can create, but nuclear creates more power, and would be better at meeting our energy demands.

Ike also, in another post, talked about the 4th generation plant that will - hopefully - be built, and this 4th generation plant may lead the way for efficient hydrogen production. Such production may help us with our oil addiction.

Like nuclear, solar doesn't generate greenhouse emissions, but solar, like nuclear, too generates waste. Solar panels have to be replaced periodically, and these panels require much in the way of disposal. Solar panels also use expensive batteries that need to be replaced periodically.

People are also cautious of nuclear due to potential terror attacks. Ike in a previous post touched on this, but solar and wind are not safe from terror attacks either. While taking solar panels offline from an attack wouldn't release radioactive material in the atmosphere (Ike argues a nuclear plant wouldn't either), solar would by no means be an excluded from a potential attack.

Thank you Maxine for the question.

I am by no stretch anti-wind or solar either, but the idea that they are FREE is completely false.  Both industries would colapse tomorrow if they weren't held up by government subsidies, wich we often forget WE STILL PAY FOR.  Even with subsidies in place, the Nuclear industry still manages to be more competative in many different ways.

Either way, there are several other problems with the wind/solar industries (other than what Unboxed mentioned):

1)  Land.  Everybody likes the idea of building windmills, just not. . .here.  Build it somewhere else.  Blackfoot is going this issue even as we speak.  The war rages on.  (By the way, there are designs currently in place where we can actually build nuclear power plants underground.)

2)  Reliability.  Windmills only generate profitable amounts of electricity 30% of the time.  Solar is even worse - especially outside of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and S. California, where it is even feasible to work it profitably.  With that understanding, you can't have more than a small percentage of an infrastructure powered by wind and solar because when you need power, you can't wait for the wind to blow or the sun to shine.

3)  Solar is extremely expensive.  Our environmental friends love to harness the sun's power, but fail to mention that if we supplant even a small percentage of our infrastructure with solar, our costs will double.  Who gets hurt by this?  The poor.

Something I just thought of regarding wind power...

So, instead of getting our energy from sources we can at least somewhat control (Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia etc), we're going to opt for a source of energy from something we can not control (Mother Nature)?

Swiss cheese...

Well you know. . .with all the hot air being generated lately. . .

 

Okay, on a serious note: since when did wind or solar replace oil?  We burn almost no oil in this country for the electrical infrastructure.  Last time I read the stats, we got 2% of our electricity from oil, and that was more than five years ago when oil wasn't as expensive as it is now.