OT: Nuclear Energy

Page 2 of 7  
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
Or oil.
also,it doesn't kill birds,it doesn't keep fish from spawning,people don't get blacklung disease,asthma,no greenhouse emissions,and it's more reliable and PRACTICAL than solar and wind. It also uses a lot less real estate per KW generated than solar or wind.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Nah, you're just operating from raw emotion - fear and terror - without a rational basis.
You mention Three Mile Island. No one died there or was even harmed. There were two reactors at 3MI - one was shut down because it broke. The other was shut down because, um, well it was just shut down. For every week that second reactor was offline, one person died as a direct result. They died because the power that reactor generated had to be supplied by a coal powered plant somewhere nearby. During the mining and transportation of the necessary thousands of tons of coal, there was at least one fatality per week (on average).
As for a long-range solution to spent fuel rods, the problem is not that we have no solution, it is that we have so many. They range from underground storage to encasing the pulverized rods in liquid glass and dumping them in the ocean to rocketing them into the sun. No one solution is demonstrably the "best," and we don't have to choose right now. Until the choice is forced, studies continue. It makes no sense to commit to a method when a better one might pop up next week.
Regarding contamination and exposure, there are only three bad things that can happen: Radiation sickness, cancer, and genetic mutation. With radiation sickness, you either get over it or you die. Cancer is the most studied disease on the planet and cures are coming with great regularity. In the case of genetic mutation via radiation, there has never been a case of a viable fetus surviving to term in a higher mammal, although many have tried.
Meanwhile, we don't even know the NAMES of all the stuff coming out of a coal-fired smokestack.
I understand your fear (I am afraid of heights) but the rational thing is to acknowledge you have only a phobia. I don't agitate against airplanes. You shouldn't argue against nuclear power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

For that item, the obstacles are political rather than technical. The stuff can be dumped into salt domes (high success rate at containing petroleum for about 100 million years) or in the bottom of a depleted uranium mine (where it came from). The antinukers want this issue to be unsolved.

Ever see the demos of those containers that can withstand a train wreck?

We need to use everything we can.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you havent heard of skin cancer then?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/29/2008 5:40 PM stu spake thus:

Maybe you haven't heard that it's easily avoidable. Try avoiding the nuke plant (or mine, mill, enrichment plant, reprocessing plant) across your back yard fence.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Easily? You mean by living in a dark box? What exactly do you think is coming out of these places?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
stu wrote: ...

Even more easily avoidable -- the acreage taken up by these facilities is so miniscule one would have to go out of one's way to find one. Sun, otoh, is pretty much everywhere about half the time.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No he didn't ;)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

clean,reliable,steady electric power and not much else.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Uh, why would one WANT to avoid a nuke plant, mine, mill, enrichment or reprocessing plant?
Except maybe for the traffic problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bonnie wrote:

Our electric utility has applied for a permit to build another reactor at a site where they currently operate two reactors.
There still are issues such as what to do with the spent fuel. Currently all power reactors in the US are storing spent (but very highly radioactive) fuel rods on site in pools.
One thing that amazes me is how people cling to driving big gas guzzler vehicles. So far I haven't heard anyone talk about downsizing but only wishful thinking about cheap biofuels etc so they can continue driving their fluffed up fashion statement trucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: One thing that amazes me is how people cling to driving big gas guzzler : vehicles.
I agree but unfortunately it's human nature and it'll take longer to change that than to come up with a more energy efficient car. As a matter of fact, we are well on our way to that. I just wish it would move faster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bonnie wrote:

You just haven't been paying close attention. Work has been unceasing in making designs safer, etc. The nuclear industry learned (the hard way) that making waves isn't conducive to reasoned debate (of course, nuclear energy has no stronghold on that conundrum in current US policy-making :( ) so it hasn't gone out of its way to make headline news.
But, you may want to look at the following for starters...
www.nustart.com
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html
Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf
In short, the NRC has on file and docketed for hearings licensing applications from six utilities/utility consortiums for a total of 12 units.
There are two additional applications for four units under active review but not yet docketed.
What utilities have discussed sufficiently w/ the NRC that they have them tentatively arranged to handle the applications thru the federal 2010 FY includes another 15 applications for about 20 additional units.
So, to say there is "no talk" is that there is only no widely distributed media coverage, not that there is no activity.
For the one naysayer so far, I'll make only two points--
1) As far as I know, the sun still goes down at night everywhere and we still expect to have lights. Solar, wind and other alternative generation sources have roles to play, but they don't solve the whole problem by any stretch of the imagination.
2) The "solution" we're lacking for nuclear waste isn't technical but political. It consists of closing the fuel cycle as the French and others have demonstrated is feasible. The only reason it isn't in the US is that a mandate was set down by a former Chief Executive that the NRC was not allowed to consider licensing the facilities in the US. That shortsighted decision is, unfortunately, still in place.
And that's all I've got to say about that...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: : You just haven't been paying close attention. Work has been unceasing : in making designs safer, etc. The nuclear industry learned (the hard : way) that making waves isn't conducive to reasoned debate (of course, : nuclear energy has no stronghold on that conundrum in current US : policy-making :( ) so it hasn't gone out of its way to make headline news. : : But, you may want to look at the following for starters... : : www.nustart.com : : http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html : : Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications : http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf : : In short, the NRC has on file and docketed for hearings licensing : applications from six utilities/utility consortiums for a total of 12 units. : : There are two additional applications for four units under active review : but not yet docketed. : : What utilities have discussed sufficiently w/ the NRC that they have : them tentatively arranged to handle the applications thru the federal : 2010 FY includes another 15 applications for about 20 additional units. : : So, to say there is "no talk" is that there is only no widely : distributed media coverage, not that there is no activity. : : For the one naysayer so far, I'll make only two points-- : : 1) As far as I know, the sun still goes down at night everywhere and we : still expect to have lights. Solar, wind and other alternative : generation sources have roles to play, but they don't solve the whole : problem by any stretch of the imagination. : : 2) The "solution" we're lacking for nuclear waste isn't technical but : political. It consists of closing the fuel cycle as the French and : others have demonstrated is feasible. The only reason it isn't in the : US is that a mandate was set down by a former Chief Executive that the : NRC was not allowed to consider licensing the facilities in the US. : That shortsighted decision is, unfortunately, still in place. : : : And that's all I've got to say about that...
Wow, thanks for the links and the post. And I have heard that there are a fair number of plants in Europe with plans for more. That may have something to do with what another poster said about it being a private enterprise in this country as opposed to governmental. I used to be a strict libertarian but the older I get, the more I believe in an effective blend of private and government. I have recently put some money in Toshiba which besides making TV's, etc, make nuclear power plants. They bought parts of the old Westinghouse company which was in nuclear. A British company bought that division of Westinghouse first.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bonnie wrote: ...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum2.html
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the silliest argument I've ever heard. The whole thing holding back nuclear power plants is the government, which has let environmental extremists come ahead of common sense and national security. If the government had a streamlined process where a company could get approvals in a couple years with a straightforward processs, utilities would be building them now.
Here in NJ, the environmentalists are doing everything they can to prevent Oyster Creek from getting a 20 yerar license extension. They want it shut down. All they know is that they are against everything, even windmills when it comes time to finally build them. As for the sun, last time I checked, it cost about $50K for a solar system that produces 6KW, which is the size of a small generator. And that's while the sun is shining.
I used to be a

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:47:40 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You missed the thrust of my arguments.
No private firm is going to put up with the hassles you have just described. Plus the 10 years application-approval process, 40 years operating life and 10 years decomissioning. There is no decommissioning protocol in place, ie. nowhere to dump spent fuel and hot reactor parts,as described in other posts. In that kind of time frame many private companies have ceased to be profitable and ceased to exist altogether.
In nuclear energy the government should be the policy maker, the regulator, the investor, the operator and the entity to hold the ultimate responsibility for the operational consequences of nuclear plants. Private industry is unable to accept the national security, the economic and the regulatory risks.
Therefore if the US, UK and other western countries are going to leave nuclear power plants to private industry you might as well wait forever. In the meantime your national energy security gets more precarious by the day. With that goes your economic health and the global political power that goes with it.
A country's energy security can no longer be left to private industry to own and control. Your government must take control and make the necessary policies and investments. In hydrocarbon energy the primary producers are already now (foreign) government owned. They prefer production-consumer contracts on a state to state basis. Even the state owned oil company in a poor country like India is already larger than a big league US oil company. China's SINOPEC has more than twice the market value (though not the profitability) of EXXON and can make deals EXXON can only gasp at. EXXON's profitability is a cruel illusion. The windfall profits from booming prices should default back to government revenues and used to mitigate the effects of inflation and facilitate public policy strategies. That is China's advantage.
The oil battle needs its own book to describe. So do national enegry security debates.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PaPaPeng wrote:

I agree unilateral action by the national government is essential, but there's a way to do it without tampering with the free-enterprise system.
The United States could take over major fields in oil producing countries - by force if necessary - and manage the energy as a "world resource," thereby preventing places like Saudi Arabia from holding the world hostage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yeah,that's worked SO well in other countrries...

you sure could not trust the UN for that job!
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.