firstname.lastname@example.org (Don Klipstein) wrote in
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.
Nah, you're just operating from raw emotion - fear and terror - without a
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
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.
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
Ever see the demos of those containers that can withstand a train wreck?
We need to use everything we can.
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
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.
: One thing that amazes me is how people cling to driving big gas
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
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...
Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications
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...
: 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
: But, you may want to look at the following for starters...
: Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications
: In short, the NRC has on file and docketed for hearings licensing
: applications from six utilities/utility consortiums for a total of 12
: There are two additional applications for four units under active
: 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
: 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
: 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.
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
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:47:40 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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.
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.