I see nothing wrong with testing this out. The French use the excess heat from small nuclear plants to heat greenhouses — now granted, I opposed nuclear for years, but compartmentalizing it and making it local would be much more interesting, especially those that are low maintenance and local. I’d prefer to gang a few of them together in, for example, a small development, a common resource like a clubhouse that all can take advantage of, but they don’t have to clean the pool. I see nothing wrong with testing to find out if this works.

There’s a lot of fear mongering going around. I, for one, would prefer to have folks put some of these in operation, monitor and test the hell out of them, including testing local codes by paranoid councilpeople, and see what they can/can’t/shouldn’t/won’t do, rather than try to stop nuclear development in a mind-numbing attack of fear panic, just assuming all of it will be another Chernobyl. Lets at least pretend to be open-minded until we have something resembling a fact.

Here in Boulder County, everyone’s always complaining nobody will look at alternative energies, but when one comes up that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions (wind, for which most of the materials for the towers come from outside the country, Photovoltaics, which can be put out of commission by forgetting to clean them and getting a short or geothermal, which requires careful engineering so you don’t bake the soil around your house), they tumble right back into either the “big oil is evil” or “nuclear is evil” mindsets and can’t think straight, and nothing positive gets done. Now they are trying to force their favorite technologies on anyone building a new home, in spite of the fact that they’re marginal in terms of the energy they can provide (Boulder gets little wind in most of the county, and where it does near the divide, it’s open space, and can’t be used). This would at least provide reliable energy (assuming they aren’t fibbing – that’s what testing is for).

ALL of these technologies need to be used, and most of them aren’t there yet, in terms of functionality OR cost. I do believe localizing energy production is the way to go. Look at how much energy is lost in transmission. We are wasting what we have, yet we balk at even TRYING something new or even letting someone else try something new (nobody is asking you to put one in your yard, but I’d volunteer).

author–

you failed to discuss the significant shortage of human trained resources and VERY limited capacity to make and machine critical casting parts for nuclear reactors–worldwide. in addition, the USA is essentially in the need to completely rebuild its nuclear industry; not true in most other OECD nations. much of the USA capabilities are quickly being consummed/commited to overseas projects[Shaw/westinghouse, GE] while this nation ponders/bickers over strategy/direction.

“Also, there is the very promising prospect of much safer thorium powered nuclear reactors”
This article, although focusing on uranium based reactors, seems to be about public perception of nuclear power. And thorium based reactors are still “nuclear”, and that is all people (lay people, elected officials, bloggers) are going to hear. It doesn’t matter how safe they are (or are supposed to be). New designs of Uranium (with or without Plutonium) reactors are extremely safe as well.

When someone hears nuclear they still think three-mile island and Chernobyl (or Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter). It is going to be an uphill battle educating the public to the extent that nuclear power will be accepted (enough for new reactors to be built). But eventually (it just a matter of how long) the idea of using oil or coal for energy will be a thing of the past. Perhaps the same will oneday be true for nuclear as well (eventually – VERY long term – being replaced by wind, solar, and geothermal).

During the 1970’s and 80’s uranium was extracted from phosphate fertilizer. This source is enormous, requires no mining and no leaching with sulfuric acid.

Extracting uranium from this source prevents contamination of our water supplies when the fertilizer is sprinkled thoughout our farmland, vegetable gardens and yards.

The chemical process is economical when uranium is $ 50.00 / lb.

People should UTUBE the ‘chernobyl disaster’. There they will find the number of deaths directly due to the accident was 40,000, not 4,000 as the politically correct IAEA states, plus all the ‘liquidators’ in horrible health whilst still being under 50 years old.
The Nuclear Hot Tub idea seems intrinsically safe (not mentioned in the above article; => the author must not have an axe to grind with them), but since almost everyone barking for more nuclear is directly or indirectly either dishonest or seriously misinformed, its difficult for us lay people to glean an accurate assessment of the true risk. Ill stay out for the time being, and would encourage other prudent people to do the same.