Nuclear Energy..........why not??

[FinanceDude]

Seems to me nuclear energy would be an easy way to lower our dependence on natural gas and coal.

I don't think we've built a new nuclear plant since the 70's. However, one of my friends just got back from Europe and he said they have nuclear plants all over the place. I think 40% of France's power comes from nuclear plant.

One of my clients is a retired nuclear engineer, and he swears it's the cleanest safest way to go.........

Thoughts??

 

[NotSoonEnough]

There have been some rumblings in my neighborhood about a new facility being built...

AEHI Signs Letter of Intent to Construct Nuclear Plant

But even with modern technologies, better material handling, and all the rest, there are still plenty of NIMBYs making their voices heard.

Google 'bruneau nuclear plant' if you'd like to learn more...

 

[ERD50]

Because popular musicians told us not to in 1979.

Musicians United for Safe Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shouldn't our energy policy be set by people who can play guitar and sing? I mean, why not?

Hmmmm, some of our popular musicians today are taking a strong stand on some environmental issues. Deja' vu all over again?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

While I wouldn't agree that it is the safest way to go, we definately should have more nuclear power.
Combined with more solar, lots more wind, tidal and geothermal

 

[FinanceDude]

While I wouldn't agree that it is the safest way to go, we definately should have more nuclear power.
Combined with more solar, lots more wind, tidal and geothermal

On a comparison basis, I think he was saying that is was safer to the environement on a NET basis than natural gas, or coal.

 

[Zathras]

I completely agree with that FD. The amount of radioactive waste, mercury and such that are emited from coal plants are really scary.
And I suppose there is some danger from a wind generator, it could fall on you

 

[DallasGuy]

If the US could somehow over the next 10-20 years get most of our cars running as plug ins (electricity) with the power from coming solar, wind and nuclear power plants, can you imagine how much less oil we would need? Would there be any reason to have a presence in the middle East anymore?

 

[USK Coastie]

No new nuc plants permitted in the last 30 years. Thank an environmentalist. France generates 80 % of its power from Nucs. Unable to drill for oil off our coasts on in ANWAR. Thank an environmentalist. Chinese drilling for oil off our southern coast in conjunction Cuba thank an environmentalist. Higher fuel prices and our nation held hostage to oil from crazies in the Middle East. Thank an environmentalist. Who wines most about the high price of oil. Those who have supported this misguided policy of failing to develop energy independence.

 

[FinanceDude]

No new nuc plants permitted in the last 30 years. Thank an environmentalist. France generates 80 % of its power from Nucs. Unable to drill for oil off our coasts on in ANWAR. Thank an environmentalist. Chinese drilling for oil off our southern coast in conjunction Cuba thank an environmentalist. Higher fuel prices and our nation held hostage to oil from crazies in the Middle East. Thank an environmentalist. Who wines most about the high price of oil. Those who have supported this misguided policy of failing to develop energy independence.

Are the environmentalists that strong anymore, or are they ALL in the US Congress??

 

[brewer12345]

Nukes are definatley cleaner than coal. Debatable vs. other power sources. The problems with nuke ae:

- Liability: who is going to insure lots of new plants? You want the feds taking that one on?
- Spent fuel: What will we do with it, especially if there is a lot more of it?
- Sourcing fuel: I am under the impression that nuke fuel isn't that readily available and is very expensive and dangerous to mine.

I think nukes are worth pursuing, but there are some problems to be solved.

 

[DougViages]

Don't Forget Yucca Mountain

A government/private consortium has spent Billions of $ over the last decade building a deeply buried and very isolated site for storing the nation's nuclear power generation wastes. ALL of the Dem presidential candidates (and Harry Reid) are against this project. Jeez, who electsthese morons? Oops, we do.

 

[FinanceDude]

- Liability: who is going to insure lots of new plants? You want the feds taking that one on?

I think the feds covering the risk is the only way it would fly, in the post 9/11 era.......

- Spent fuel: What will we do with it, especially if there is a lot more of it?

What ever happened to all those abandoned salt mines we used to have?

- Sourcing fuel: I am under the impression that nuke fuel isn't that readily available and is very expensive and dangerous to mine.

Uranium as a source ore and uranium stocks have gone through the roof in the past 3 years.......wonder why.........

 

[toofrugalformycat]

There is no safe way to store spent fuel. Still.
Here's just one link that reiterates what I remember reading several places:
IEER: If not Yucca Mountain, then what?
Zooming ahead with nuclear power without any good way to store the waste for tens of thousands of years is analogous to running up big credit card balances and expecting other people to pay them off somehow, sometime, later. IMHO.
We should do it because France does it? Sounds like keeping up with the Jones's, the opposite of the basis of this forum. Again, IMHO.

 

[ERD50]

There is no safe way to store spent fuel. Still.
Here's just one link that reiterates what I remember reading several places:
IEER: If not Yucca Mountain, then what?
Zooming ahead with nuclear power without any good way to store the waste for tens of thousands of years is analogous to running up big credit card balances and expecting other people to pay them off somehow, sometime, later. IMHO.

I don't know the answer, but let me phrase the question differently. The question should not be:

"Is Nuclear safe?", but:

"Is the total risk of Nuclear greater or less than coal?".

Include environmental damage and lives lost from mining, transport, and the waste. The trouble with just pointing to nuclear waste is it ignores the mercury, particulates, CO2, etc from coal. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum.

Nothing is 'safe'. Wind power kills birds, but it probably saves more birds than it kills by reducing pollution and reducing environmental damage from mining.

We need to look at the big picture, not just eliminate something due to X, Y or Z.

To para-phrase: Zooming ahead with [-]nuclear[/-] coal power without any good way to [-]store[/-] deal with the waste [-]for tens of thousands of years[/-] after we spew it all over the planet is analogous to running up big credit card balances and expecting other people to pay them off somehow, sometime, later.

The reality is, that for every nuclear plant we don't build, someone will be building a coal fired plant. There are consequences. I don't recall any of those No-Nukes musicians abstaining from using electricity (no 'un-plugged' concerts don't count ).

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

There is no safe way to store spent fuel. Still.
Here's just one link that reiterates what I remember reading several places:
IEER: If not Yucca Mountain, then what?
Zooming ahead with nuclear power without any good way to store the waste for tens of thousands of years is analogous to running up big credit card balances and expecting other people to pay them off somehow, sometime, later. IMHO.
We should do it because France does it? Sounds like keeping up with the Jones's, the opposite of the basis of this forum. Again, IMHO.

You do not understand what I am trying to say. Is it better to stripmine large tracts of land for coal or to invest in a technology which has proven to be reliable and safe?

 

[toofrugalformycat]

ERD50 wrote: I don't know the answer, but let me phrase the question differently. The question should not be:
"Is Nuclear safe?", but:
"Is the total risk of Nuclear greater or less than coal?"."

I agree.

FinanceDude wrote: "You do not understand what I am trying to say. Is it better to stripmine large tracts of land for coal or to invest in a technology which has proven to be reliable and safe?"

Obviously the reliable and safe technology is better. Are you referring to solar, wind, geothermal or something else? Surely not nukes. What exactly do you think I do not understand?

My college buddy majored in nuclear engineering and got a masters in it at MIT. He got a job at Trojan nuclear power plant on the Columbia River. When that plant was closed down, he went back to school to go into a different engineering field. When I asked him why, he said, "There's no future in nuclear. They haven't figured out how to store the waste." His opinion influenced me greatly. He's a brilliant guy.
It's true coal is dirty and mining is dangerous and destructive, but it could be a lot better if the industry was regulated better. The Bush administration has done untold damage in particular. Here's just one article:
White House Minimized the Risks of Mercury in Proposed Rules, Scientists Say - New York Times

 

[grumpy]

To all those who have expressed support for more nuclear power in the US- would you agree to have a new plant built in your town? How about in your neighborhood? Would you like to own a house near Three Mile Island? That is what I thought.

Grumpy

 

[ERD50]

To all those who have expressed support for more nuclear power in the US- would you agree to have a new plant built in your town? How about in your neighborhood? Would you like to own a house near Three Mile Island? That is what I thought.

Grumpy

Grumpy - get real.

The choice is not between a Nuclear Plant and a nature preserve. The choice is between a Nuclear plant and a Coal plant and a strip mine.

How close do they put coal plants to homes? I probably would not want a Nuke any closer.

As far as other alternatives, they can only supply a small % right now, so we will still end up wither adding coal or Nuke to supplement.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

To all those who have expressed support for more nuclear power in the US- would you agree to have a new plant built in your town? How about in your neighborhood?

Grumpy, since you asked, yes I would. As a matter of fact I would much rather have a nuclear plant in my town than a coal plant. Of course, given the choice of any power plant, my first choice would be a wind generator system

So, ERD and I have answered you, your turn. Would you rather have a coal plant built in your town/neighborhood or a nuclear plant?

 

[Nords]

Gosh, I thought this thread was about safe nuclear reactor design. I'm all for the pebble-bed reactor proposals.

But it seems we're discussing politics, zoning, and environmental radicalism. Never mind.

 

[ERD50]

Gosh, I thought this thread was about safe nuclear reactor design. I'm all for the pebble-bed reactor proposals.

I heard that they were building some pebble bed reactors in South Africa. Sounded interesting.

-ERD50

 

[toofrugalformycat]

The title of the thread is "Nuclear Energy....... why not??

The other "why not" for me is the inevitable failure that must come with anything mankind designs and operates. It takes a loooong time for spilled radiation to cool down. We've only even been a country for 200 years. How many people on this forum trust the government to regulate industry well enough to prevent a catastrophe for the next 10,000 years?
Being from Alaska, where a drunken ship captain ran a single hulled oil tanker onto a charted reef and spilled oil that is still there 18 years later, I'm a skeptic of the "oh, that will never happen" types.

 

[ERD50]

TFFMC - good example of the dangers of fossil fuel.

How many deaths have been caused by the kinds of Nuke designs that would be used for new plants. Zero, I think. A Chernobyl design would never be built again, most never thought it should have been built in the first place. TMI? No deaths.

I'm not finding a good link, but I thought I heard that the 10,000 year number is very misleading. That some high % of the waste has a half life of a few years. Something like >90% of the rad is gone after 50 or 100 years?

Anyone have a good source for this?

-ERD50

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

To all those who have expressed support for more nuclear power in the US- would you agree to have a new plant built in your town? How about in your neighborhood? Would you like to own a house near Three Mile Island? That is what I thought.Grumpy

i've already got one north of me on hutchinson island (north of jupiter) and one south of me at turkey point (south of miami) so either way the wind blows on a bad day they've got me glowing green (think homer--as in donuts, not the iliad).

even though i was recycling glass since i was a young teen (we used to collect & separate the clear from the pretty colored glass) i never could get myself to rally against nuclear. but i was also never able to speak up for it either because, well, as someone already mentioned the musicians, it came as a package deal with litter and water pollution.

 

[ERD50]

i've already got one north of me on hutchinson island (north of jupiter) and one south of me at turkey point (south of miami) so either way the wind blows on a bad day they've got me glowing green

Except for the fact that coal plants release more radiation into the surrounding area than do nuclear plants. 100x more.

Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dig that coal out of the ground and you get some trace radiation. Burn tons and tons of coal, and it adds up. So if there is any glowing in the dark, it is from the people near coal plants, not the Nukes.

-ERD50