Bush Calls For Resumption Of Nuclear Plant Building

[maddezmom]

LUSBY, Md. (AP) President Bush says it’s time for America to start building nuclear power plants again.

Visiting a plant near Washington, the president noted that no new commercial reactors have been built since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

While acknowledging the accident “frightened a lot of folks”, he said recent advances make nuclear power “far safer than ever before.” And he said America’s economy needs the “massive amounts” of non-polluting power that nuclear plants can generate.

Bush spoke as the Senate considered a version of his energy plan that includes provisions to encourage construction of nuclear plants.

~snip~
more:http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_173105607.html

Bush: U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power Plants

LUSBY, Md. - Pushing for the construction of nuclear power plants, President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to send him an energy bill, though he acknowledged that even when he signs the legislation, gasoline prices at the pump won't fall overnight.

Bush is promoting nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels — oil, natural gas and coal.

"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," said Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

While Bush's speech was focused on energy, he also spoke about economic concerns like Social Security, medical liability insurance, education, permanent tax relief and trade. It was part of a White House effort to focus on economic security for Americans as well as national security in the war on terrorism.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nuclear_power_1

[phantom power]

1. He's right on this issue.

Wow, it was realy painful to say that.

[nine30]

64. I agree, for once at least he has stolen a liberal idea.

But what are his oil buddies going to say about that ?

[TankLV]

72. Great - then you can keep all the NEW waste in your own fucking back yard

we sure as hell don't want it and won't allow it here in Nevada!

Find a way to clean up your own goddamn waste, and maybe I'll reconsider.

Until then, a big FUCK YOU for polluting and harming Nevada citizens!

Bunkerboy and the repukes are WRONG AGAIN!

[phantom power]

91. I'd prefer not to store it in Nevada.

It's fine where it is, until we can recycle it in future reactors.

[WhiteTara]

90. Well don't!

Nuclear power is not a viable form of energy. Uranium is a very deadly heavy metal and we don't want it contaminating the earth. IMHO Renewable sources, sun, wind and water are a much better way to go.

[MindPilot]

2. Umm, since when is nu-ku-lar power "non-polluting"? eom

:shrug:

[Rosco T.]

23. Google "Pebble Bed Reactors" and you'll find the answer to that. n/m

[htuttle]

3. "includes provisions to encourage construction of nuclear plants."

So I bet that means that the taxpayers are going to subsidize them, yet allow the corporations make away with the profits.

If US taxpayers pay for those plants, they ought to be nationalized.

[Massacure]

16. Ding Ding Ding! We got a winner!!!

[Deja Q]

65. Just like we ought to for ANYTHING that gets taxpayers' money.

It's only fair and right to do.

[sweetheart]

4. clearly he speaks for the next 1000 generations

who will live with the toxic waste and pay the REAL costs of the
cleanup of his administrations inability to control its consumption.
We can use more nuclear power, in the following way. Send a large
rod of nuclear fuel to every republican's home and deposit it under
their bed. Then they'll be warm at night and save money from that
electric blanket. And soon, nuclear power will free us from those
stupid morons who can't do NPV sums for the cost of a 1000 generation
cleanup project.

[Karenina]

5. Excellent idea!

:toast:

[livetohike]

11. Creating more terrorism targets

Great idea, idiot boy.

He can't bring himself to fund alternative energy such as wind farms or solar power. He has to create a mess, just like a four year old and leave it to others to clean up.

Which state wants to absorb all of the nuclear waste these plants will produce? Step right up.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

70. waste can be processed to ammunition

which they're low on anyway. and they don't need consent to depose of it.

more energy, more ammo, less required consent

trifecta anyone?

[Massacure]

17. clearly you speak for the next 1000 generations

who will live with the mercury and arsenic in their water, global warming as a result of CO2 in the air, breathing problems from NOx and SOx, et al.

[sweetheart]

27. I live near a nuclear plant, sir

And you are welcome to come around and use a local beach. Just be
aware that there are cancer clusters and bits of plutonium in the sand
at the beach. Don't be alarmed, there are only hundreds of thousands
of them, and they can only kill you if you ingest them or inhale them,
and when was the last time THAT ever happened at the beach? So
please come round. THose particles were accidentally released in the
last 30 years... and clearly in 10,000 more years of decay, they'll be
much safer, and in the meantime, you can consder how we should tell
all future generations for the next several generations that some of
them will die from visiting the beach.

There is wind power, there is insulation, and solar power. With a
significant government effort, we needn't involved ourselves with a
nuclear nightmare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2806643.stm

I speak for people all over the world who will die from poisoning from
the overuse of unsustainable power and calling for a return to nuclear
might suit republican ambition, but it certainly is no service to the
people.

[Massacure]

47. That doesn't happen at every nuclear power plant.

Note, you said accidentally. Coal pollution is deliberate.

Besides, with your plan what happens when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing???

[leesa]

53. There is no known way to dispose of the waste and accidents

DO happen. I am still treating patients with leukemia from Chernobyl and it's still leaking. I suppose you could relocate the waste in weapons dropped on unsuspecting countries. Nucear power is a disaster.

[sweetheart]

58. change happens

Firstly, lets say that we ditched incandescent lightbulbs for LED bulbs.
Lets say we turned off street lighting after midnight.
Lets say we allowed houses with excess solar and wind power to sell
back to the grid. Even coal can be used very effectively provided there
are chimney capture devices to control emissions. Where there is a will
there is a way.

Then a million houses would act like micro-generation stations, and
where it's sunny, the grid would be supplemented, and where its dark
not... and where it's windy yes, and not, not. Its not rocket science
to use sustainable power solutions intelligently.

But when power pigs are pushing big-energy and massive waste, you're
right, as pigs require a mud pit to roll in, and it is filthy indeed.
When you use the argument of the pigs on the animal farm, you get
corporate fascism, no matter how it is dressed.

[TankLV]

73. Clearly you won't mind living next to a waste dump.

Sure as hell won't allow it here in Nevada.

Keep your fucking waste to yourself.

[sabra]

6. Bush: Nation needs more nuclear power plants

<<SNIP>>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-22-bush_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Bush: Nation needs more nuclear power plants
LUSBY, Md. (AP) — Pushing for the construction of nuclear power plants, President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to send him an energy bill, though he acknowledged that even when he signs the legislation, gasoline prices at the pump won't fall overnight.

Bush is promoting nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels — oil, natural gas and coal.

"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," said Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78% of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

While Bush's speech was focused on energy, he also spoke about economic concerns like Social Security, medical liability insurance, education, permanent tax relief and trade. It was part of a White House effort to focus on economic security for Americans as well as national security in the war on terrorism.

<</SNIP>>

[jasmeel]

7. Like a hole in the head! n/t

[ananda]

8. Bush truly is..

.. nuts.

[Lerkfish]

10. the only problem with this is that feeder nuke plants consume more energy

than they produce....my understanding is that, for example, a feeder nuke plant (which makes enriched uranium for use in other plants) can sometimes access as much as 33% of the power grid of AN ENTIRE STATE.

so, its not really going to be that beneficial energy-wise.

of course, if you want to start manufacturing a new class of atomic weapon...they HEY! they're great!

IMHO, of course.
disclaimer: any expert knowledge I may appear to possess is uncorroborated and likely useless facts that stuck in my brain over the years, like pipe sludge, and the veracity cannot be verified. Thank you.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. bush doesn't know where the fuel comes from, probably

thinks they mine it out in the desert and toss it into the reactor like coal. I am certain that if he can't pronounce it, he can't understand where it comes from or how it works.

[Lochloosa]

33. He Can always buy it from Niger

:nuke:

[jpak]

46. Most of the uranium used by US nuclear plants is imported

Last year the US consumed 53 million pounds of yellowcake and produced less than 2 million pounds.

"Domestic" energy it is not....another Chimp lie...

[phantom power]

13. No, that isn't the case.

Nuclear power is superb from an energy return perspective.

It also produces zero greenhouse gasses, or other atmospheric pollutants, which are killing us, and are going to kill a whole lot more of us in the coming century.

The flooding and hurricanes we've been having in the south-east are just a warm-up. In other places, droughts are emptying reservoirs. We're headed for big trouble, and not some day in the future, it's already started.

We need reliable energy technology we can deploy immediately, on a very large scale, and nuclear is on the short-list.

[Lerkfish]

15. um..ok

I "get it" that you're pro-nuke energy.

however, I'm relatively sure, for BREEDER reactors, using the older gas enrichment systems, the amount of electricity needed to run the reaction can be as high as one third of an entire state's needs.

note I'm talking breeder reactors here.

now, there are some breeder plants that will use centrifuge technology in the future, which is less of an energy drain, but for right now, gas enrichment is what is used, and it is HUGELY draining of electricity.

besides, most nuclear plants in existence now have serious negative environmental impact, in terms of contamination of ground water through radiologicals or chemicals, such as TCEs. there IS an environmental cost to nuclear energy, the propagand just glosses over that.

[Massacure]

18. I want to see a source for that.

It smells like Bullshit to me.

[Lerkfish]

19. which part?

it is to the best of my recollection, as I stated earlier in my disclaimer.

which part do you think is BS, and I can try to track that down for you.

[Massacure]

50. That breeders need more electricity then they produce.

I also think the 1/3 of a states electrical grid is fishy.

Fusion is the only nuclear reaction that I ever heard of needing more energy than you get from it.

[Lerkfish]

59. see post #34.

[Massacure]

71. The U.S. has a capacity to enrich 19.4 million SWU.

Lets take your highest figure of 100 kWh. That means that if you enrich 24/7 you end up taking about 221 megawatts to run those facilities. That is not even one nuclear reactors worth of electricity. Even if we use the 3000 kWh figure, that is 6.6 gigawatts. Most reactors generate 500-600 megawatts, so that would be about 12 or 13 reactors. The U.S. has more than 100 reactors.

Diffusion is old and obsolete. Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth held the only three gaseous diffusion facilities in the United States. Oak Ridge's diffusion plant was shut down and a centrifuge built in its place. Portsmouth was shut down in 1985. In 1998 the DOE handed control of Paducah's facility to USEC. USEC is currently in the process of acquiring a license to building a gas centrifuge. The sooner they do that the better.

I can see how they would use a lot of the TVAs capacity back in the day when the diffusion plants were used, but that is no longer the case.

My links:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/499-500/4932.html
http://vzajic.tripod.com/2ndchapter.html
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/faq.html#3

[Lerkfish]

84. yeah, you're essentially agreeing with me....

what I said was:

however, I'm relatively sure, for BREEDER reactors, using the older gas enrichment systems, the amount of electricity needed to run the reaction can be as high as one third of an entire state's needs.

note I'm talking breeder reactors here.

now, there are some breeder plants that will use centrifuge technology in the future, which is less of an energy drain, but for right now, gas enrichment is what is used, and it is HUGELY draining of electricity.

besides, most nuclear plants in existence now have serious negative environmental impact, in terms of contamination of ground water through radiologicals or chemicals, such as TCEs. there IS an environmental cost to nuclear energy, the propagand just glosses over that.

what you said was:

Diffusion is old and obsolete. Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth held the only three gaseous diffusion facilities in the United States. Oak Ridge's diffusion plant was shut down and a centrifuge built in its place. Portsmouth was shut down in 1985. In 1998 the DOE handed control of Paducah's facility to USEC. USEC is currently in the process of acquiring a license to building a gas centrifuge. The sooner they do that the better.

I can see how they would use a lot of the TVAs capacity back in the day when the diffusion plants were used, but that is no longer the case.

[Massacure]

88. I was confused.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1571164&mesg_id=1571293

You said feeder plant which I didn't know what you were talking about then you clarified a plant which enriches uranium for other plants. Breeders don't enrich uranium for other plants. In fact most of them breed plutonium which cannot be used in standard boiling or pressurized water reactors.

The Integral Fast Reactor bred many different substances besides plutonium and was capable of burning them as well. The radioactivity of the spent fuel will return to the same level as the original ore that was mined in about 300 years. This is a lot less than the many thousands of years it has to be stored from boiling and pressurized water plants. Unfortunately it uses sodium to cool, and sodium is very flammable. The French learned the difficulties of sodium cooling the hard way in their superphenix reactor. From what I hear now, they are trying to design a fast breeder using helium cooling.

[jpak]

34. US uranium enrichment plants were sited in Appalachia

because they required large amounts of (coal-fired) electricity...

~2400-3000 kWh per separative work unit (SWU) for gaseous diffusion enrichment plants

~40-100 kWh per SWU for gas centrifuge enrichment plants

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm

The Paducah KY diffusion enrichment plant (alone) had a capacity of 11 million SWU and consumed >26 billion kWh of coal-fired electricity each year.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/paducah.htm

When all US U-enrichment plants (in KY, TN and OH) were operating at full capacity, they would consume a large (and classified) percentage of TVA's generating capacity.

These values were believed to be between 1/3 to 1/2 of TVA's output...

So, no, it is not bullshit...

on edit: added links

[Lerkfish]

40. thanks.

had a busy work day and hadn't had time to track that down, yet.

[TankLV]

75. He's 100% correct. Read up on it.

You're the one with the bullshit to sell.

NO MORE NUKE WASTE!

[phantom power]

21. That sounds exaggerated, but...

I have no particular references to back up my suspicions.

I'm not exactly pro-nuclear, so much as I am anti-fossil fuels. I think that the potential for nuclear is underestimated, in the sense that the environmental risks are exaggerated, especially in comparison to the immense dangers of continuing our current use of coal and oil.

Solar and wind have lots of appealing properties, but using them to meet our energy needs (currently about 100x10^18 Joules each year, in the USA) on a large scale also involves some serious problems, including but not limited to the problem of storing immense amounts of energy to meet our needs when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

In any case, I hope our national debate on this important topic (if we ever have one) is based on understanding the latest technologies, and not on obsolete technologies, many of which are unsafe. For instance, Chernobyl was a badly designed, badly managed reactor. Any technology is dangerous when it's badly designed and badly managed, so it's not very helpful to debate the issues on assumptions of bad designs.

Mostly, I just hope we actually have such a debate, and soon. Because whatever we do, it's a very big, and very expensive project, and we really can't afford to wait on starting it any longer. Current alternative energy projects have been on the order of mega-watts, up to a few giga-watts. That's literally 1/1000 of the actual problem we're facing, which is to deploy many tera-watts of power generation.

[rppper]

63. pro nuke here...i look at it from a different perspective....

it is still a developing source...as much as wind and sun...they are all becoming more efficient that their humble beginnings. the plants currently up and running are 50's and 60's technology...basicly when nuke power was in it's infancy. the plans for todays reactors have had 40 years and the lessons from prior accidents to learn and live by.

us naval reactors have had a 0% accident rate since the nautilus was launched in the early 50's....to my knowledge, France has never had a problem with their reactors. i served onboard nuclear submarines for nearly a decade...in close proximity to the reactors...we are talking feet here, not miles....in 8 years of underway time i received a slightly larger dose than one would get getting x-rayed. why? because the safety measures in place were followed to the letter, and every system in the reactor had redundant back ups.

3 mile island happened because of poor training and inexperience. the reactor design of the 3 mile island reactor is a relatively safe one. this is why there was only a release of steam from the stricken reactor that proved to be harmful to no one. Chernobyl was a different story....the Russian naval nuclear program should have been a warning sign to this...they were poorly designed, poorly built, poorly maintained and poorly manned, both land and naval reactors....most were odd-ball, one of a kind experimental designs. they used wonderful cooling agents like liquid sodium, graphite and mercury and shielded their reactors with fine shielding agents like cork and wood.

their nuclear program, at least their early attempts, were a sad and dangerous joke. the way reactors such as Chernobyl's operate is almost the polar opposite of the way western reactors are set up. Chernobyl was an example of fine Russian 1st generation reactor science and workmanship. In these, originally the nuclear chain reaction and power output would increase if cooling water were lost or turned to steam, in contrast to most Western designs. It was this effect which caused the uncontrolled power surge that led to the destruction of Chernobyl. the emergency shut downs were also slow.

the waste products...the xenon rod, are indeed a problem that needs addressing. yucca mountain isn't the answer, but we are an intelligent race, and i do have confidence in the human mind to find a reasonable solution....launch them into space towards the sun...who knows...we can find a solution. i am not fully convinced that it is such an evil source of power. my experience working with and around it tells me otherwise. it would certainly reduce dependence on oil and coal, which i see as greater pollutant.

[TankLV]

78. Umm - "Yucca Mountain" is the WHOLE POINT!

There is only WISHFULL THINKING as far as ANY solution to the nuke waste. THERE ARE NO CONCRETE PLANS FOR DEALING WITH IT and NONE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE!

Keep your goddamned waste out of MY backyard!

What sellfish shortsighted bastards you all are!

[TankLV]

76. Yeah - the waste that will be around longer than RECORDED HISTORY

of civilization is just a "small" point, right?!

[kostya]

25. errr, except that the greenhouse gases are coming from

the burning of oil, little of which is used to generate electricity. It's used in transportation mainly. So, nuclear would give us some extra electricity and perhaps (strong perhaps) reduce some coal-burning, but not much. Now, if you wanted to convert all cars, trucks, busses, airplanes, etc. to run on electric/fuel cells that are recharged from these nuclear plants, then you might be on the right track, but no one seriously thinks that BushCo cares a whit about alternative energy solutions.

So, this is just a red herring and probably a feeler to see how it plays in public opinion, not any type of solution. Furthermore, I'd be willing to be any amount of money (esp. since this is all hypothetical! :) ) that any increased capacity to produce power will simply be used up by our consumer-based society for "growth" and more gee-gaws, and will result in absolutely no reduction in greenhouse gases. More power is not the answer, it's the efficient utilization (and reduction) of what we have that is. However, that would be bucking centuries of human history and human nature.

Cheers.

- K

[TankLV]

74. Pssst - don't forget to mention the nuke waste that lasts for 10's of

thousands of years!

And keep your fucking waste to yourself - don't even THINK of sending it to Nevada!

[ebayfool]

54. You just haven't lived till you've had the tingly thrill run up your back

from waking to an alarm from a nuclear plant after an earthquake!

San Onofre nuclear power plant - even better, at the time I was working w/radioactive materials in welding inspection (radiography - small potatoes compared to the subject at hand). I learned to have the utmost respect for the hazards of handling radioactive materials, & learned over the 10+ years in the field that accidents happen - even w/experienced, careful people, safeguards fail w/alarming regularity, & corners are cut w/safety when costs are an over-riding concern for the people that profit from any enterprise. I have done inspections for power companies & oil companies - I guarantee that there is absolutely no difference in how they relate to safety v profit concerns. Would anyone in their right mind really want Enron, Shell, or Union Oil types handling nuclear power plants & believe that profit wouldn't top public safety?

You couldn't force me to have my family live near a nuclear power plant at the point of a gun ... I don't like the idea of having them in the same state!

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Great, now let's the put the first new one near your ranch, George.

Ahhhhhhh, I thought not.


:evilfrown:

[KoKo]

14. This should ignite major protests....."Not in my backyard..."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Endangered Specie]

29. if the plant is safe, it will be a great opprotunity

to buy some cheap land nearby that no one else wants :)

[TankLV]

79. Damn right "NOT IN MY BACKYARD"!!!!!!

I and many others here in Las Vegas are ready to FIGHT - BODILY FIGHT - to keep ANY waste from comming here!

"Insurgency"? You ain't seen NOTHING yet!

[madrchsod]

20. there is no production faculties to

build the "stuff" for the power plants. so if we want to build new plants the "stuff" will have to be bought overseas.welcome to the new american century where we try to find enough money to buy the stuff we used to make from the chinese...

[jmowreader]

24. By "stuff" do you mean fuel or equipment?

Westinghouse already makes the fuel, and could make more if they needed to.

Plants are no real problem--GE and Westinghouse both know how to build reactor cores, and the part that converts reactor heat into electricity is a plain old steam generation plant--the most common kind of power plant in the world.

The real question here is, as always, what's in it for George? Bush doesn't blow his nose or cross the street unless there's money in it for him.

[jpak]

48. I think he means this....

Next US Nuclear Reactors Won't Be Made in US

http://www.energybulletin.net/5950.html

[Rosco T.]

22. Make them Pebble Bed Reactors, using the European Design..

.. and keep Helliburton's hand out of it and I won't complain.

PBR is the safest design there is (since the rest of the world continued doing devlopment the last 20 years)

[jpak]

51. That claim cannot be made

No Pebble Bed Reactors have been built - anywhere - and none have been licensed - anywhere.

These reactors utilize graphite in their fuel pellets - graphite oxidizes and ignites at relatively low temperatures (note: the Chernobyl disaster was a graphite fire).

The consequences of a loss of coolant accident in Pebble Bed Reactors have NOT been independently evaluated by nuclear regulators in any country anywhere....

on edit: the current PBR design is not European - it's South African...

[Rosco T.]

52. yes it can.. you should read more..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

(excerpts)

Safety Features

When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel increases the probability of neutron capture by U-238 atoms through an effect known as Doppler broadening. This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause U-235 fission, reducing the power output by the reactor. This natural negative feedback places an inherent upper limit on the temperature of the fuel without any operator intervention.

The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can.

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.

These issues are not just theory. This exact test was performed (and filmed!) with the German AVR reactor. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none.

Built, tested and torture tested... the design originated in Germany and is currently being used at MIT, China, South Africa and China..

follow the page for more...

[jpak]

56. I know all about it

In a loss of coolant accident (in this case helium) oxygen and water vapor would enter the reactor core - either igniting the graphite directly or generating carbon monoxide and hydrogen which would ignite outside the reactor vessel.

As this design does NOT have a robust secondary containment, a reactor fire would spread radioactive material far and wide. They would also be highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

To be truly "safe" each fuel pebble would have to be flawlessly manufactured - and there is no QC/QA information on these fuel pellets - none.

http://www.earthlife-ct.org.za/ct/article.php?story=20040521121121179

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pbmrfactsheet.htm

http://www.ieer.org/comments/energy/chny-pbr.html

Again, NO independent nuclear regulatory body has evaluated the proposed (and nonexistent) Pebble Bed Reactor and there are serious doubts with regard to their safety.

The Pebble Bed Reactor is a Pig in a Poke...don't believe the hype.

on edit: additional links

[Rosco T.]

57. and you spout back the standard arguements.... so...

- build a containment building. Nothing in the design prohibits it.

- define 'flawless'. You automobile is not 'flawless'. It could kill you faster than a 'flawed pebble' (after of course the coolant system fails and the control rods are removed).

and why do you keep saying that PBR's are "NONEXISTANT".. they have built them, they have tested them, included the above refrenced test of PULLING THE CONTROL RODS and SHUTTING OFF THE COOLANT.

No Meltdown.

Everynow and then, something can be done RIGHT, don't diss it just because the word "Nuclear" is involved.

[jpak]

67. Actually the South African design does preclude secondary containment

as It would interfere with convection cooling of the the reactor vessel.

And I'm sorry, but the proposed PBR design does not exist. The Germans built a ceramic-fuel high temperature gas cooled reactor - the THTR-300 - but it bears little resemblance to the proposed (and non-existent) South African design (and it was a dog)...

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/PBMR.html

<snip>

THTR-300 went critical in September 1983, but was not connected to the electricity grid until November 1985 and was only declared commercial in June 1987. From June until October of that year, it operated at about two thirds full power, suffering a range of problems including difficulties with the fuel circulation system. It restarted in January 1988 for a couple of months, again running at about two thirds of its full power rating, until more repairs were necessary to the fuel circulation and collection system. It ran for another five months and was shut down due to damage in the gas ducts. Repairs were completed by February 1989. But the plant remained closed on the orders of the safety regulator because of concerns about safety and the unwillingness of the various owners of the plant, including the federal government, to continue to provide subsidies to operate the plant. In 1990, the plant was permanently closed and is being decommissioned.

<end snip>

again, don't believe the hype....

[mbperrin]

26. We have the only nuclear reactor we need, located just where it

should be - 93 million miles away! It is called The Sun. We capture its energy via wind and solar, both proven technologies. Period.

I've said it before and I will say it some more. ANYTHING * is in favor of, I am against. End of message.

[Endangered Specie]

31. Is it really logical to be against an issue based on how

someone else takes a stand?... granted he is wrong on 99.9% of things, and I suspect the way Bush/Republicans would want to develop nuclear plants is not in the best interest of the people.


(by the way, the sun is a nuclear FUSION reactor). solar and wind are good but somewhat limited technologies. The goal is to not rely

[mbperrin]

38. Yes, it is logical when that someone has entanglements like

Carlyle and others who run him for their exclusive profit-making benefit.

I guess my point about the sun is that it is the source of all energy on this planet and produces plenty of it. Why do you feel that's limited? I live in the middle of the West Texas oilpatch and am off the grid inside the city limits using small windmills and forklift batteries. Cost: $8,000. Payback: two years. Life expectancy of batteries: 10 years. What's not to like?

Look around a bit; you'll find some major advances in both just the last five years I believe. Thanks for your post!

[Lindacooks]

61. I agree. And the to the people who want pebble reactors, I say:

what do you do with the waste? That's the problem with nuclear energy they can't answer. Sun and wind power are proven technologies that work and that are CLEAN. And they are NOT limited.

[Endangered Specie]

28. A broken clock is right twice a day...

we DO need OTHER sources of power besides coal fire and oil/natural gas. Thus the other generally viable option is nuclear o(solar, wind only work in certain areas and can be used there)

FYI Nuclear power can be made safe, and breeder reactors and reprocessing can reduce the amount and life of the waste. And before you remind me that it isnt clean, no energy source is really clean... how much crap do you think those other coal/oil plants make, the effects of THEIR pollution will last numerous generations as well.

If your so dead set against nuclear power, then I kindly suggest you turn your electricity off, power demands will greatly outnumber supply soon, and if you invest the proper funds, you can get a safe, effective nuclear system (see the French).

[kostya]

32. Interesting, but do you ever ask yourself the question...

why "power demands will greatly outnumber supply.."? Is the only solution in your mind to simply increase supply? The amount of money in the past wasted on nuclear power generation and the amount that BushCo would surely waste on a revival of this energy source could be put to much more efficient use in conservation and alternative power generation projects, fuel cells, etc.

Of much greater concern should be our profligate mis-use of petroleum, which would not be affected by building more nuke plants, since only a small percentage of our oil is used to generate electricity.

I can't wait for the day when the repugs who want nuclear power revived hold up the French as an example!!! :rofl:

[Endangered Specie]

36. funny I did suggest power conservation...

by turning off your electricity!

Yes, we can try and conserve power, but ultimately people want power, we use more and more electricity and there are more and more of us, and it will only grow exponentially, especially when you consider that other developing countries will be demanding more just like us.

I am not suggesting we not spend money on other alternate energies, in fact, Id recommend it (i consider nuclear to be an alternate energy btw). and I also would hope that people more fiscally and morally responsible (democrats) would be in power (no pun) when these plans are developed.

The main thing we need is investment (somehting people in this country do far to little of) for future gain.

[mbperrin]

39. Just pointing out I'm already off the grid.

Thanks.

[jpak]

42. Breeder reactors simply do not work

Every single prototype breeder ever built experienced a serious sodium fire and/or meltdown that resulted in its decommissioning.

Every single one.

The French SuperPhenix "breeder" actually consumed MORE plutonium than it produced.

Reprocessed plutonium is 20-fold more expensive than uranium derived from ore, and reprocessed uranium is unusable due to contamination by 232-U and 236-U (the former renders it highly radioactive and the latter is a neutron absorber that poisons the nuclear chain reaction).

No nation that reprocesses spent fuel - not even France - uses the recycled uranium.

None

Breeders and reprocessing plants are extraordinarily expensive to build and operate - the French SuperPhenix breeder cost $10 billion and the Japanese Rokkasho reprocessing plant will cost in excess of $20 billion to build and billions more to operate.

If the US pursues breeders and reprocessing, we might as well turn off the juice cuz no one will be able to afford it.

[Endangered Specie]

62. rats

:(

[TankLV]

80. Pure, and uttter BULLSHIT and nuke industry PROPAGANDA!

There is no documentation or data other than the PROVEN FABRICATED LIES that have been exposed as coming out of the nuke industry to gain approval for Yucca Mountain!

Ever read the transcripts of the leaked tapes of their "meetings"?!!

I HAVE! It's just like the tobacco industry - only MUCH MORE insideous!

Not a SINGLE THING that they have claimed - containers, water infiltration, length of storage - NOTHING that you have said and they also have tried to claim is TRUE!

THERE IS SO FAR NO SOLUTION FOR DEALING WITH THE WASTE - other than dumping it in MY backyard when WE DON'T EVEN PRODUCE ANY OF THE WASTE!

[Endangered Specie]

82. no links?

[high density]

83. That seems to be a general problem in this thread

The anti-nuke folks can't seem to spout anything beyond "not in my back yard" and other hysterical undocumented rantings against it. In fact I think given the hostility of one of the posters here, he must think that some people in this thread are actually in charge of the US energy policy. After weighing everything, I think at this point I think I'd rather see nuclear power plants built in this country instead of coal or oil burning plants. Managing nuclear waste seems like it would be an easier problem to solve than cleaning the skies of air pollution.

The main problem with this policy in my mind is that I think we're generally all set with power generation in this country right now. What I'm very concerned about is engineering something to replace the internal combustion engine in my car.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

87. such is life I guess...

I wonder how many "anti-nuke" people live on a grid supplied by one? :shrug: (my power is supplied at least partially with Nuclear).

Ive seen documentation showing Yucca mountain to check out. I have yet to see (and have asked) for something refuting Yucca. (and its certainly safer then the way its stored right now!)

There are some promising technologies that might significantly reduce the quantity and severity of waste.

But, like any new technology, it requires investment.

And while were at it, lets talk about the pollution we all have to breathe (in our backyards) because of people running off of coal fire.

Nuclear waste may be highly toxic when compared to an equal mass of smog, but there is a HELL OF A LOT more smog! controlling a few pounds of nuclear waste is easier than, say a million cubic feet of polluted poisonous air.

[Lindacooks]

30. Great! Let's build one in Crawford, Texas!!

Right next to the pig farm!! After all, if nu-cu-lar power is so safe, chimpy should be glad to have one right in his backyard!

[The_Casual_Observer]

41. Or Washington DC, next to the wh. Use the Potomac for cooling water.

[Lilith Velkor]

60. You do realize Bush is never here, don't you?

Or is it Congress you have such a beef with?

[Brundle_Fly]

35. As soon as I hear

the ones we already have are better defended from threats, I cannot support this plan.

Oh and it's Bush, so can't support that either.

[MisterP]

37. more money for Bechtel!

Rummy and Baker rollin' in it

[Megahurtz]

43. Oh Joy.

:sarcasm:
What about solar power you dimwit???:argh:

It's everywhere and it's

FREE!!!

Oh yeah I forgot....it's free.

:sarcasm:

[truthisfreedom]

44. it's time for the USA to use Yankee Ingenuity to come up with working

Alternative Energy Sources, and it's time for the government to be funding this research whole-heartedly instead of shipping pallet-loads of $100.00 bills to Iraq for bribery!

[newblewtoo]

45. Yankee Ingenuity

You do realize one of the suggestions for the BRAC base reuse is Nuclear power plants? Groton (Sub base) and Portsmouth( Naval Shipyard) have lots of Nuclear engineers and workers. They are crazy like foxes these people.

[dave29]

49. Bush: Building a bridge to the 1970's

High gasonline prices, nuclear waste, environmental disaster and malaise

[HockeyMom]

55. 9/11 NOT WTC, but Indian Point NUKE PLANT

So what do they want to do? Build MORE nuke plants, that cannot be secured. Oh, wait, I forgot. DIRTY BOMBS, not OUR Nuke Plants.

[Deja Q]

66. Re-enriching the uranium would negate the need to store the waste...

There would be virtually no waste.

[Cornjob]

68. Yes, if you mean just the fuel...

But for every plant there remains the problem of disposing of worn-out reactor vessels, pumps, core assemblies, etc., etc.

For each reactor, these components constitute thousands of tons of very dangerous radioactive waste that cannot be easily disassembled, transported and stored. In the 1970's, I was responsible for the metallurgical designs and manufacturing processes of many large reactor components. Over time, the constant neutron bombardment reduces them to brittle (and dangerous) junk.

A second, and really major problem, is that there are no U.S. manufacturers of the large reactor components. The huge forgings used to construct the reactor vessels cannot be manufactured here any more.

Bush has visions of a revitalized conventional nuclear power industry. It ain't gonna happen! France can still make the conventional nuclear dinosaurs, but they haven't figured out what to do with their waste.

Nukes are still a real bad idea.

[jpak]

69. Again, reprocessed (recycled) uranium is unusable

It contains 232-U (which renders it highly radioactive and nearly impossible to handle) and 236-U (a neutron absorber that poisons the fission chain reaction).

No country that reprocesses spent fuel uses the recycled uranium - none!!!!

and....reprocessing does not eliminate the need to dispose of fission products (principally 137-cesium and 90-strontium).

Moreover, reprocessing increases the volume of high level liquid waste and poses serious concerns with regard to nuclear proliferation (i.e., North Korea).

Reprocessing is a problem - not a solution...

[TankLV]

81. Only in your dreams. NEVER a proven technology.

Only someone's PIPE DREAM!

No further action on anything nuclear UNTIL THEY SOLVE THE WASTE PROBLEM FIRST!!!!

[WLKjr]

77. Here's a thought for all

Why is it okay for us to build all the damn nuke plants and foriegn countries are not dared to or we bomb them????


this is a head scratcher to me.

[NuttyFluffers]

86. i don't trust this bastard doing anything...

and i'm normally pretty cool with sensible, modern nuclear plants and reclamation infrastructure (like the ones in france, and the interesting angle china is exploring). i think, as ugly as it is currently (though it is improving!), it is one of the few immediate solutions to absolute societal collapse with coming peak oil and speeding up global warming. we're gonna need that time so we can get some sensible people to make more viable solutions to our problems.

i don't trust this guy shoveling shit, let alone spurring creation of nuclear plants.

[Ganja Ninja]

89. I think we need this but ,,,

I'm sure the American corporate greed heads will cut corners and turn this into a future disaster. Still the French are doing it. The Japanese do it. The Chinese are doing it. We need to get off the fossil fuels before we suffocate in our own exhaust.