After decades without a nuclear reactor being built, 13 applications before regulators

[Robbien]

Source: AP

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - The nation's nuclear energy industry, all but stagnant for three decades, is quietly building toward a resurgence with more than two dozen new reactors on the drawing board in 15 states.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already reviewing license applications from plants in eight states to build 13 new reactors, and it just received another application for two more. Later this year, plants in seven other states plan to seek permits for a dozen more reactors. The first could be built and operating by 2016.

While 104 commercial nuclear reactors remain in operation in the United States, the NRC has not approved a construction license for a new reactor since 1978.

The nuclear revival is far from a done deal, however. Companies still must arrange financing, and will need federal loan guarantees and states' approval to hike rates to pay for construction if those loans are to be affordable.

Read more: http://www.pr-inside.com/after-decades-without-a-nuclear-reactor-r642511.htm

---

Fed handouts and customer rate hikes for nuclear waste generating plants but wind and solar industries are told they are on their own in their efforts to develop alternative energy.

[mtf80123]

1. Is there a list...

of locations for where these plants are to be installed?

[Robbien]

7. The article didn't say. It did say however

that most of them will be built in the southern states.

One bright spot is that the huge steel containers that house the reactors (about the size of a 6-story building) are supplied by a single Japanese company. So everyone would have to wait in line before building a new reactor.

[Endangered Specie]

2. Good, I'm tired of burning coal and oil... aren't you?

and before you say "what about solar, wind, geothermal" etc...

those sources of power are great for "peak load" production, not for "base load" production, we will need *BOTH* Nuclear and alternatives.


everything has its place in the energy generation scheme, but as of now and the foreseable future, only Nuclear, Coal, or Oil can provide true, reliable, base load

[VP505]

3. Wonder why this sounds like

a hurry, get what you can while the getting is still good kind of thing.

[TrogL]

4. Canada needs new reactors

They're used to produce radioisotopes for medical purposes. There's only one working properly and when it was down about six months ago there was a major crisis.

[Endangered Specie]

5. China is building and planning many nuclear reactors...

Finland is also building another right now.

[SCUBARACK]

47. Great and where does Chinese pollution blow to?

[6th Borough]

92. Steam rises.

n/t

[Endangered Specie]

122. Ask the coal plants... nuclear just makes steam.

[Cleita]

137. They make steam AND nuclear waste that has to be disposed of in

very special ways. It's not your normal landfill waste.

[NutmegYankee]

228. Steam has this amazing ability to be recycled.

You cool it down from a heat exchanger to a secondary loop, and presto, more cooling water. No disposal needed.

[psychopomp]

242. Mostly over us here in Japan

This summer the sky has been hazy even on a sunny day thanks to Beijing smog. That isn't even counting the annual yellow haze caused by the dust picked up and carried over from the Gobi desert.

Thanks, China!

[Overseas]

6. Get the deadly technology approved while folks are hard hit at the pumps

Don't regulate the oil speculators. Oh no, build more nukes instead.

[Endangered Specie]

8. How many people in this country have been killed by a nuclear power plant accident?

[Indenturedebtor]

10. We don't have that many yet

The problem isn't the deaths per se, it's that it salts the earth for thousands of years. Plus that waste has to be disposed of, etc, etc.

So why not Geothermal and solar/wind? Tidal, etc.

[Endangered Specie]

12. Waste can be dealt with, and everything generates waste...

nuclear fuel can be recycled and reused, the French do it, but its not allowed in this country. Using fuel once-through is an extreme waste, kinda like throwing a car out with a 3/4 full tank.

Coal and Oil, obviosuly, generate a shit-ton of waste that is killing people, albeit alot more subtly. All alternative energy sources produce some waste, photovoltaic cells dont last forever, and neither to wind turbines.

Also, the major problem of all alternatives is scale, they are perfect for providing peak load production, but cannot match up to nuclear/coal/oil for base load production.

[jwirr]

26. Everything generates waste but not deadly waste. Also would you be

willing to donate your state to house all this waste? I live in northern Minnesota and they once talked about putting all that lovely stuff in granite silos in my state. NO! we do not want our ground water polluted nor do we want the danger that goes with them. We work hard here to keep our state as clean as we can.

Having said that I am afraid that we will need to keep using nuclear power from the existing plants to build the infrastructure for new systems. Also if the past is any indication nuclear building has problems of its own: plants that are outdated by the time they are completed and need to be rebuilt, cost overrides, greedy owners. They are not perfect either.

[tidy_bowl]

32. Following your logic....

...you would want that we all should live out of caves, wearing loincloths and chewing tree bark. If that is your choice then fine go live in peace, but don't interfere with mine as you haven't the right to dictate to me how I wish to live.

[jwirr]

34. If you are putting your waste in my back yard then YOU are the dictator.

[girl gone mad]

74. Talk about a strawman.

:eyes:

[Cleita]

135. Well, if you want to live with a ticking bomb don't interfere with my right to not do so nor

dictate how I wish to live, which is without nuke plants.

[6th Borough]

96. Hiroshima was rebuilt and is repopulated.

That city had a bit of a nuclear waste problem, to say the least. We Americans are perfectly capable of destroying our health in much less spectacular ways. Of course, strict regulation over the nuclear energy industry is a must; politics must never be able to twist systems of oversight to monetary advantage on a "nuclear" (methaphorically and literally) scale.

[Cleita]

133. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with bombs that only penetrated the top

layer of the city. Most of the radioactive dirt was able to be removed because it didn't go that deep. There still was higher than normal cancer rates there. This is entirely different than the danger nuclear plants present. Yes, they are more secure than before but still depend on the fact that there will be no human error or neglect involved and we know to err is to be human. With all the new and safe energy technology available we don't need nukes, Wall Street does for profits. Don't fall for it.

[SCUBARACK]

40. By your logic

the best way to get rid of nuclear waste isn't to concentrate it but grind it up into tiny particles and blow them into the air. You know. Subtle.

[Endangered Specie]

69. Speaking of leftover nuclear waste...

:nuke:

[Tikki]

11. How many peoples' quality of live and long term health have...

been compromised by the effects of waste from nuclear production and from the
accidental/experimental procedural mishaps that have and will happen even under so called
safeguards.

Your environmental is only as safe as the current administration in office.

Tikki

[Endangered Specie]

13. and they'll be out soon...

thank God. to answer your question, I really can't think of any with regard to nuclear fuel/waste, aside from hazards to workers/miners like any other worksite. People have been killed working in a nuclear plant, but those deaths are not a result of radiation (things like a pipe burst).

[Tikki]

17. I was specifically talking about the long....

term health effects from nuclear production and it's waste and
actual people who have lost their quality of life and whose
health has suffered from associated opportunistic diseases.



Tikki

[Lorentz]

21. While you're looking that up...

... why don't you also look up the number of people who have, in the long term, lost significant quality of life and health due to crap being spewed in the air by coal-burning plants. I think you'll find the numbers significantly higher there. Manual laborers lose quality of life because of their jobs, period. It's a high-risk lifestyle. The "nuclear" aspect of it is irrelevant.

[Tikki]

25. Here you go....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DF1131F931A25754C0A966958260

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/67081_health19.shtml


and yes...even though we have been promised that
health and safety for all American workers will advance through the years and
with better technology there should be less danger...1,000's of American workers
health fails to the point of disability from their jobs each year. Example: coal miners..

So the nuclear industry should be given a pass just because coal miners get sick!!


Tikki

[bossy22]

14. very few

did you know that more radiation is produced from a coal fire plant than a nuclear- thats because there are so many regulations and saftey systems that its radiation emissions are close to zero

im a supporter of nuclear energy but our nuclear supply isnt enough to keep it going forever. We need to also invest in Breeder reactors- basically reactions which make fuel (very interesting concept- take a look at it)...with nuclear breeder technology (btw there are working reactors so the technology is out there) we could have a 3000 year supply of fuel. The great thing also is that breeder reactors recycle old fuel rods to be used again in the plant- so there is virtually no waste

the major problem is there is public misinformation and fear of this type of technology...they all harp on cherynobal (a badly built reactor by 1960's standars) and Three Mile Island (which was stopped when the backup system kicked in)

nuclear is safe, clean, and efficient- until something better comes along i see it as our only option for a greener earth

[klyon]

20. What happens when the plant's life is over.? How do we contain

the radiation. Do we have to keep building bigger and bigger building to house the radioactive remains? What is the useful life for a plant and who pays the insurance? It may be safe today but what happens later? is it really cost effective? Without government money I don't think so. Lets put our money into something reasonable like solar, even coal burning would be better if the industry would put on the scrubbers that the law requires instead of getting exemptions.

I don't think nuclear is safe or clean or efficient. France is wondering what to do with the mess they have with aging plants. Yes new technology and better, more efficient designs are on the boards but still I am not convinced.

[bossy22]

27. thats where breeder technology comes in

it basically allows a plant to keep reusing its own waste over and over again

once a plant is decomissioned they can be in-tombed with concrete which will prevent most of the radiation from seeping out

as much as i like solar energy there just isnt enough space on this earth to power our needs

there are some problems with nuclear energy but i believe that we can find solutiosn to them

[patriotvoice]

18. Far, far fewer than those harmed by coal and oil.

With nuclear, you have occasional accidents (information from Wikipedia):
There have been about 100 immediate and long-term fatalities associated with military and civilian nuclear accidents. There is no immediate consensus on the number of long-term premature deaths from Chernobyl, but numbers in the 10k to 200k range have been put forth. (I will remind the reader that Chernobyl happened because they were "performing" a scientific experiment on a nuclear reaction *before* running any form of simulation -- in other words, it was a very preventable disaster.)


With coal you've got miners health degradation, forests ravaged, sludge to store, and dirty air. Just a few links:

Coal smoke killed thousands in London in 1952:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954

Chinese coal pits kill more than a thousand:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/06/content_431598.htm

Let's not forget the tens of thousands of acres devastated by coal strip mining:
"By 2012, the U.S. government estimates that we will have destroyed 2,500 square miles of pristine Appalachia. Currently there are over 107 trillion gallons of coal slurry stored or permitted to be stored in active West Virginia 'impoundments.'"
http://www.alternet.org/water/70475/?page=2

And further, we're losing more hardwood to strip mine, resulting in less capability to sequester carbon:
"Large-scale surface mining has converted forests to grasslands, resulting in a loss of carbon sequestration capacity of approximately 1.4 million acres, according to Stout."
http://www.alternet.org/water/70475/?page=4

Study says Coal Plant Pollution Kills 30,000 a Year
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm



So... even if you assume Greenpeace's enormous fatality number for Chernobyl (200,000), then in 7 years coal has killed more people according to the Clean Air Task Force study.

There is simply no case for coal and oil versus nuclear. Coal & Oil = Rock. Nuclear = Paper. Geothermal/Wind/Solar/Hydro = Scissors. Paper beats rock. As soon as we can have base load production using Geothermal/etc, then we can let scissors beat paper.

[Pavulon]

19. mmm, none.? no deaths here, no environmental issues

just cheap carbon free power. Breeder reactors and pbr reactors are common and should be used here. Coal fired plants are more dangerous.

Cant run industry with bird choppers.

[klyon]

22. the heated water dumped back into rivers is a problem

fish are affected... species are moving on when the water is too warm and different ones may or may not replace them

and it is hardly cheap... plant investment is not a short term return in fact some plants never pay for them selves. If it wasn't for government subsidies and insurance coverage they never would so the true costs are not really being told.

[Pavulon]

41. I caught native fish on lake norman

in the return area. Warmer water, more fish late or early season.

My power in RTP is cheaper than in soCal. That is why people move data centers and heavy industry here.

Check out france.

[SCUBARACK]

44. Cooling water is needed for most plants not just nuclear.

We have oil power plants on rivers that dump the cooling water back into the river. It provides a nice place for the manatees to spend the winter. Of course if it was a nuke plant the manatees might grow legs and take over.

[Joe Bacon]

234. Tell that to folks in St George Utah!

Do some googling about St George and Cancer and see the spikes in cancer rates in that area due to nuclear testing!

[Recursion]

60. I'll never get the Larger Left's aversion to nuclear

It's a damn site better than having to kiss up to regressive misogynistic middle eastern dictatorships.

[Lorentz]

114. It's a cause, that's all. Nothing too deep.

They need something to latch on to and oppose. Doesn't matter if the cause is just or not. Education? That's just kool-aid that the right-wing corporate conspiracy wants you to swallow (they control the university libraries, apparently).

[Codeine]

178. Fear of science.

It's endemic on this side of the political spectrum, I'm afraid. Check the Science and Health folders if you want to see it in action.

[fascisthunter]

245. stop talking out of your ass

[Codeine]

248. A useful and well-reasoned reply. nt

[fascisthunter]

249. for you it was

and it worked

[ForPeace]

229. Staggering amounts of nuclear waste

in the United States await safe disposal and you advocate making more before we even know what to do with what we have?

What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?

It's a poisonous time-bomb. This waste will be dangerous for durations ranging from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years.

[fascisthunter]

244. Because the Potential to Kill Millions is Important to US

DUH

[fascisthunter]

243. Let's Keep it That Way Dummy

[snooper2]

250. You hittin the bottle a little early,

or is this late for you :rofl:


I sign you up to test the seals or something on the next new nuclear reactor... :evilgrin:

[sudopod]

99. This has been brewing for about a decade

And it will be a little less than another decade before the main body of these plants will come online. There really isn't much hurrying involved in building nuclear power plants. :)

[Cleita]

9. Our local power plant is a nuclear one.

We have alarms to warn us of an accident. The alarms are tested monthly. We are given pills to take in case of radiation. We have to worry about possible terrorist attacks and it's known that the nuke plant isn't all that well protected. This is not to be an acceptable energy solution. It would be safer to be living next to an active volcano.

[Lorentz]

23. "It would be safer to be living next to an active volcano."

There is an old adage that says: "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". Statements like that do your movement a grave disservice.

[Cleita]

31. I have no movement and for the record our community does sit on

an ancient volcano as evidenced by the formations and sulfur springs around here all the more reason not to have a nuke plant here because of earthquakes. Our energy problem could be easily solved with going to solar, if only our dumb shit republican governor gave a damn.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. How many times have you taken those pills?

What pills are they anyway? How many times have the alarms gone off for a real accident not in training? How many terrorist have attacked your nuclear power plant? If it's not acceptable why do you live near one?

David

[Cleita]

29. Once would be enough and I doubt if I would be here to tell the tale after that once.

There just isn't the same risk next to the dam power plant, the coal plant and other ways of getting electricity even though they too can be dangerous to your health down the line.

[Lorentz]

35. Why wouldn't you be there after taking the pills?

Please describe exactly what are the dangers of living next to a nuclear power plant. Is it going to blow up in a mushroom cloud? Is *radiation* going to kill you instantly? What kind of radiation is going to be released? Alpha? Beta? Gamma? What isotopes, and how will the radiation travel? Through the air? Are you up-wind or down-wind?

You should really read up on this before you go all death-n-destruction on us. If anything, it'll allow you to live a more relaxed life.

[Cleita]

37. The pills are not that effective, but it's what we have.

If there is a meltdown that means we have to evacuate and the pills are something that might help you live if you accidently get radiation before you can get out. For many of us evacuation would not be a possibility without help. Considering how well FEMA handled Hurricane Katrina, I'm not holding my breath. Since you want me to read up on this, you should read up on Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before you consider this a good solution. There is plenty of information about the long term effects of these catastrophes. Living with dangerous technology when there is safer available is not an acceptable option to me. How many pills and alarms do you need with solar and wind power? Really, don't push this technology. It sucks. We have other alternatives.

[Lorentz]

42. Wind and solar are not viable large-scale energy producers

Besides, if you live next to a wind farm, one of the fan blades might fall off and destroy your house! You'd be better off living next to a live volcano (or a nuclear power plant).

PS: you cite two incidents -- only one of which resulted in venting of radiation (because it was in the USSR and had not quality control) -- out of an otherwise clean run of nuclear power plants across the world, over a period of 30+ years. With your logic, sea-faring voyages would have come to an abrupt end after the Titanic... (and we certainly wouldn't be flying around in planes, because they can crash).

[Cleita]

46. Actually they are because of the simplicity of using them especially solar.

I would assume that wind energy would be used in wind farms that are not in populated areas like in my state where they are up on hills where there is nothing else. Comparing disasters like the Titanic and airplane crashes to the real dangers of nuclear power is simply disingenuous of you and I'm sure you know better.

[Pavulon]

54. Show me an 800 megawatt solar array that works every day

Aluminum smelters and industry have to work when it is cloudy or raining. Maybe at night as well.

Solar is not solution, nor are bird choppers.

[Cleita]

102. Darling... solar can provide the needs for most homes and businesses.

The heavy industrial users like hospitals and the smelters you mentioned would require more. Herein you do need electric plants but we already have them and with solar technology wouldn't need to build new ones. Also, homeowners can sell back their excess electricity to the plant for them to use on reverse meters so with a government backed plan to get as many roofs on solar as we can over the same period of years and probably less cost than building nuclear plants and we would have abundant and safe electricity for everyone and every industry.

[Lorentz]

57. Please tell me what the dangers of nuclear power are

You premise all of your arguments with the "dangers of nuclear power". I would like to know what those are, because apparently I must be missing something here.

[Cleita]

65. You do know about the hazardous waste problem?

The nuclear plants we have now are finding it harder to dispose of this. Now if we start building more of them, there is more of this kind of waste, which is not your landfill waste. Remember all the brouhaha about Yucca Mountain? Just exactly where is this waste that takes oh 50,000 years to become non-radioactive supposed to go? That is a dangerous waste that if not managed right can leech into our soil and water. And considering that we are entering an era of no regulation whatsoever on most industries you really don't believe those people are going to be so meticulous about managing their waste without adequate regulation. So if there is never, ever an accident, this is not going to be the end of it. It's still creating this radioactive waste that has to be disposed of somewhere. I can't believe that you don't know that this time of energy is far more dangerous to living things than the average power plant. Surely you can't have been drinking all that kool-aid that the industry prepares for you. Please don't impress me with your ignorance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Your Star Trek logo is fitting because you are lost in space.

[Diclotican]

81. Fire_Medic_Dave

Fire_Medic_Dave

The picture is indeed USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D. And maybe the most famous Enterprise of them all:P

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Cleita]

87. Delete

Sorry I didn't mean you but the other poster.

[Cleita]

86. Well thanks for the insults and the ad hominem attacks.

I would expect no less from those who can't debate nor put up some sources for their position because they don't have any so all they can do is get nasty.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Lighten up.

[Lorentz]

106. An experiment for you

I want you to find a rock -- flat, and say, half and inch thick -- and put a small piece of metal on top of it. Then, I want you to see how long it takes for that piece of metal to sink through the rock to the other side.

Once you've done that, I want you to estimate how long it would take that piece of metal to sink through several thousand feet of said rock.

Then, I want you to place the piece of metal inside another metal box, and repeat the experiment.

The "nuclear waste" that is to be stored at Yucca Mountain is not green, glowing liquid in rusty barrels. It composed solid, metallic fuel pellets that are redundantly stored in several layers of shielded casings. The extremely small likelihood of a "leak" will result in spilled fuel pellets on the floor of the containment facility. The water table is extremely far below that point, and as my experiment suggests, nothing is going to get there in any reasonable amount of time (i.e. several tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years).

As for kool-aid and such: you might want to google my username. It probably suggests that I know something about science.

[Cleita]

108. You probably know a lot about science but that doesn't mean it's the

best science. Milton Friedman knows a lot about economics, but oh well, his ideas have given us the economy we have today. Now professor whatever you are, we the ordinary people may not have an academic knowledge of all things but we can read and we can see what is going on around us to make informed opinions and decisions. We don't need anyone coming around dismissing our concerns and belittling us as kool-aid drinkers because we aren't academically in your league. So take your diploma or whatever you have and join the real world.

[Lorentz]

110. No, you can't make informed opinions and decisions.

That's the whole point. And this is not a personal attack. Your conclusions are unfounded, in light of the real science behind what you're talking about. Furthermore, you refuse to listen to someone who understands the subject being debated, and dismiss them as "kool-aid drinkers".

THIS is exactly why the US is 30 years behind in nuclear power. You ignore the voice of reason and get offended that someone with expert knowledge might know better than your "informed" opinion.

You know, the reason why stem cell research is such a hotly-debated issue is that people with "informed opinions" feel that it's tantamount to killing babies.

[Cleita]

112. Yes, I can make decisions.

I read and other scientists disagree with you. So I know what I want in my backyard and what I don't want. Even if it's irrational to you, tough. Go peddle your snake oil to someone else. And personally, if we get so far behind in nuclear power that we go back before Eisenstein and Oppenheimer it's okay with me.

[NutmegYankee]

144. Funny.

It's always the Republicans who talk about "good" science vs "bad" science. Economics is more like philosophy. Science is just science. Raw fucking data and results are what they are. I can't stand non-technical types spouting that bushism bullshit about "good" science. That fucking talking point makes me what to puke. No wonder we are behind in science. Even liberals have started spouting off that shit.


:rant:

[Cleita]

160. You just want me to say that I'm too dumb to make a decision about

what I want in my community. Sorry, Bub, but that's democracy and I want it back. If you were such a good scientist you would explain your position better rather than attack me.

[NutmegYankee]

169. You stated "good" science. Science is not good or bad, it just is.

This has nothing to do with democracy. Science isn't democratic. It just is what it is.

Example:

A peer reviewed scientific study finds that schools that teach abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates. That is science. Then people who think abstinence only is better because of faith etc attack the science as being "bad" science because it conflicts with their opinions and beliefs. It doesn't matter what you believe or feel, more girls get pregnant with abstinence only sex ed. The scientific sampling and data doesn't have a political view, it doesn't believe or not believe in God, it just is the FACT!

Whether you choose to use that fact, or buck it is your choice. But ignoring it or claiming it is bad isn't going to change it.

[Diclotican]

53. Lorentz

Lorentz

Both Tree Mile Island, and Chernobyl was accident happening, not by the reactor itself, but it was human input who overloaded the system, and almost make the system i Tree Mile Island to melt down, in a "china syndrome": In Chernobyl, in Ukraine it was an horrible road of accident, both humans, and design flaws that ended in an explosion, and therefore a nuclear blast.. And they who say it was no safely and quality control in the USSR are either lying bluntly or have No clue how it worked in USSR.. Many things in USSR was not good, specially when it come to safety and quality control. But the russian HAD control, good control with their nuclear devices, and the nuclear reactors, who was in Chernobyl was not an old outdated type of reactor, but an reactor type from the early/mid 1970s.. It was in fact a pretty new reactor, and had been working to produce electricity for just 5-6 year, when it started as a maintain-ce work, and ended as one of the most horrible accident in the aftermath of 1945... The design had more than 8 different safeguards.. That the cooling water should not been stooped to come to the reactor core and such.. But it was one minor design flaw who the designers never believed to be critical. In fact they never blivet the RBMK reactor of the type who was in Chernobyl to be an very dangerous reactor at all.. The RMBK reactor was indeed a safe reactor, compared to many other type of reactor the USSR had been working on down the ages.. This was a reactor with a triple safe dome, and not as reported in US media an reactor type with just the be tong building what is been seeing on the pictures.. It was a pretty safe type of reactor. An reactor type who was reliable, and used in many Eastern block country.. Even the Finns had RBMK reactor in two places in Finland.. Who was closed down, and they have to use millions of finnish mark to make them more safe.. The reactors who are in Finland, of the type is still very well working.. With more safeguards than it have before the accident..

When it come to Tree Mile Island, the reactor was indeed close to blow up too.. If the system had not worked, the reactor could have blown up 30 seconds later.. And in an official report who was given months after Tree mile Island it was reported, that the reactor was 30 seconds to not be salvageable.. And in the vicinity of Tree Mile Island, a little City called Chicago reside..

In the ages since the first reactor, the reports of accident in reactors are numerous.. Yes Tree Mile Island and Chernobyl are the most known.. Tree Mile Island because it was stooped just in time.. Chernobyl because it was not stooped in time.. But in a book I have, and it is rather outdated now, the book reported more than 600 different accident, in West Europa and US alone. And it was in many cases just dam luck that the reactors was not blown up when the was beginning to go tuff.. And in many cases it was negligible work by the operators of the reactors who almost was doing the most harm..


And now they want more reactors, to produce electricity.. Hm well I hope the new design are more safe than the older types.. And I really hope the operators of the reactors today are using the money necessary to operate the system right.. It is proven behind doubt that many reactors of yesterday was never so safe as they want us to belive..Not in Western Europe, not in the US...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Pavulon]

55. TMI and Jane Fonda

paired up to set us back 30 years. France has a fully functional nuclear grid. The navy operates reactors with a flawless record.

TMI was a partial melt of fuel. Chernobyl is not a comparable event.

Westinghouse ap1000 and the naval units are gold standards.

The Chernobyl reactor was unsafe by design. Modern reactors (pbr) are not capable of super criticality events.

[Diclotican]

56. Pavulon

Pavulon

Don't blame this on Jane Fonda.. After Tree mile Island it was almost hopeless for any american producer of nuclear reactor to build another reactor in the US. And after Chernobyl, it was imposely to build new reactor in the West all togheter.. And after a few year, the soviet broke up, and it was almost impossible for the former soviet republics, and the Russian federation itself to get the reactor going.. It was a total brake up of everything. And it is just amazing to know, that the russian made reactors was not in worse shape than they was in the 1990s... Many country, like my own have spend a lot of money to keep the nuclear reactors in Murmansk and other city in the north safe... Because it was in our own interest to get them safe...

The US navy have ALWAYS been extremely proud of their record. And they should to. The US navy have been EXTREMELY strict in safety aboard any weasel who are powered by nuclear reactor.. And they have been extremely god at it.. The Admiral (I have forgot his name) who was pushing for nuclear aboard nuclear powered submarines was extremely strict about the safety issue. And that regime have been good in US navy ever since.. The US sub fleet safety system are something US should be extremely proud of.. As I know it, no ship, have been lost in the US navy, when it come to nuclear accidens...

The Chernobyl RBMK was not "that" unsafe for the standard of the day.. But compared to newer and therefore safer reactor standard, the old RBMK reactor of course is bad.. AND both Japan and France have proven that it is possible to operate many reactors, and still have a strict standard of safety.. France and Japan are two country who are using a LOT of nuclear power to heat their homes.. I believe Japan is using reactors to more than 80% of their heating and industry alone...

If the new standards who have been talking about here in this tread could be used safely I doubt it would be so problematic to use it anyway.. But the folks need to be educated, and the operators have to use the money necessary to operate the things in safe condition.. The old reactors, and the old way of doing thing was very often very bad.. Not good and the "bottom line" when it come to safely and money was never a good thing.. Many operators of nuclear reactors both here in Europe and in US have not been using the money necessary, or have been concerned with the safety thing. Before something happened and they had to use millions of dollar to clean up things. Or that the government have ben putting their feet down and get some stiff fine to the operators..

It must be an new standard to witch every one of the operators have to do it after.. No more cheating, or lying in the paper work. Maybe a "civilian" NAVY standard should be the standard for operating the new line of nuclear reactors?:. We can learn a lot from the US navy, when it come to operating nuclear reactors...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Pavulon]

59. TMI put common sense on hold

Admiral Hymen Rickover designed a stringent program. That program exists and still produces really smart people. Use of Nuclear infrastructure would provide them employment and the US a non carbon polluting energy source.

France and Japan are doing what we should be doing. We need to decommission all the old reactors over 10 years and replace them with efficient safe designs.

Nevada has a long history of being a nuclear stepchild ( we used to nuke it before the test ban) so they can take the waste.

[Diclotican]

77. Pavulon

Pavulon

That was the name.. I know I had learn that name, but just forgot it yesterday, Thank you:)

Well, for the US navy to have nuclear operated ships, was more for the use of the USN and the ballistic submarine force, long before it was popular to be an non carbon polluting energy source.. If I may be so bold.. The Nuclear reactor was a device where the sub force in the cold war could be under water at months end.. And in the modern submarines, it is more the place to have food who are stooping the submarine than the submarine itself... If it was possible to trust modern computers, all together I would bet the Submarine would be a force totally automated... But when it come to submarine, specially them with 24 missiles back the tower I doubt the Navy trust the computers that mutch...

France and Japan have been doing this for ages already. Even that both Japan and France have had their share of accidence and mishaps.. But it work pretty well today. Japan have maybe the strictest user of nuclear reactor worldwide. I would bet that any country who are planing building nuclear reactors could learn something from Japan too...

Many reactors are old, very old.. The oldest reactor in the US have passed more than 50 year.. In many cases the operators of the reactors, are younger than the hardware they are working on... And the age are in many cases showing even with all the new tech they do have.. The decommission of all old reactors is a step in the right direction.. But it would take years to just make the preparation to race the reactors from the face of the earth.. Sweden are planing now to stop the use of their reactors. And they are saying the whole thing would take 20 year to do... And would cost in the ten of millions to do.... They may even have to loan some money from Norway to get it done:evilgrin: And Sweden have just 8 reactors to raze

How many OLD nuclear reactor have US today?.. I would believe it to be some and it would cost a lot of money to safeguard all parts of the reactors, and all the other equipment who are necessary to operate a nuclear plant.. And this type of hardware have to be safeguarded for maybe 100 or 500 year... And the most poisoned hardware have to be safeguarded for maybe ten of thousands of year.. If they are digging some real deep holes where all the stuff from the old reactors can be storages for the times, maybe Nevada is the place.. I know the armed forces in the US have a lot of bases in Nevada, and can protect it from most enemies...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Cleita]

104. Yes and the Nevadans are so thrilled with that plan. NOT!!!!

I wouldn't blame them for seceding from the union for this plan.

[Cleita]

68. Frances dirty little secret is they are having increasing problems in

disposing of their waste and it's becoming a problem for them.

[Diclotican]

78. Cleita

Cleita

True, not many in Europe want this type of waste to be storages in their neighborhood and even France is not that big.. And I would say maybe in the most part of Europe it would at least be an angry mob to working to stop the storage of nuclear waste if it was to be send somewhere... Even in Russia where they do have had another policy of doing things, the nuclear waste have been coming into problems with russian demonstrating against it.. In the 1990s when Yeltsin was in office, it was possible to do it, but after mr Putin was coming into play it have been harder to get a permit to demostrate... If it is not in favor to the government then.. And the Russian riot police is an pretty tuff crowd...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Cleita]

89. Nobody on this planet wants the waste stored in their back yard.

If they ever came up with technology to shoot the waste into the sun, then maybe we would have something, but that is really is space cadet thinking and probably only a reality on Star Trek.

[snooper2]

252. We could shoot it in to the sun...it's just the cost...

I forget but somebody should have the figure of what it costs to launch 1 pound in to space. And of course we would have to have it contained in some sort of safe container in case the rocket blew up at launch; so it can be recovered and re-launched :)

[Lorentz]

58. I appreciate your comments...

... but it doesn't change my point of view. You basically indicate that operator error caused these accidents. That means the technology is very safe. To my knowledge, France has never had an accident. There are minor accidents in plants and experimental reactors that cause death, but there are accidents in every kind of plant conceivable. You can't not offer a viable technology because periodically there are accidents.

Newer reactors ARE safer, just as newer planes are safer, newer cars are safer, and newer blenders are safer.

Also, FYI, Three Mile Island is nowhere near Chicago. It is, however, immediately adjacent to Harrisburg, PA.

[crikkett]

62. oh no

my brother lives downstream from Harrisburg

:yoiks:

[Diclotican]

79. Lorentz

Lorentz

In most cases, in the airline industry as in nuclear reactor industry, it is operator error who case accidents.. Off course it can be malfunction, and design flaw to.. But in many cases it is indeed the operator who do the stupid thing.. Even the most failsafe thing, can be broken if the operator are not following their manuals.. And even manuals some times are wrong... The human touch is in many cases alfa and omega when operating big equipment you know...

France have had their share of accident, but not some big ones.. But they have worked very hard to get their reactors as safe as possible.. And I believe in many cases the reactor are state owned too.. So the money issue are maybe not the potent as if the reactors was primary owned by private operators. I am not sure, but I believe the france state do have a stake in every reactor build in France since 1950s...

Off corse new thing is more safe than older ones. And the same comes to reactors.. But it would be some issues to do, when the new reactors are been build.. You can't just demand that a place shall have an reactor plant build.. You can do it, but you would be tampered in any way possible.. And in US the Will to go to cort to get reactors out of the way is far more, than in Europe..

Off course, my wrong.. But if Three Mile Island had blown up...Harrisburg would have been a Ghost town today... As Chernobyl is... And a big part of PA would be impossible to live in.. And you had to close doors and windows when driving true the most dangerous area.. That is the case in Russia...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Lorentz]

85. Enough hyperbole

That means "big exaggeration", FYI.

Is Hiroshima a ghost town? Is Nagasaki a ghost town? Is a large portion of Japan unlivable today? Is a large portion of Nevada unlivable today, for that matter? A "nuclear" incident doesn't mean that the surrounding area will be completely destroyed for eons. The majority of the isotopes involved have half-lives of 30 years or less. We know how to clean them up. It wouldn't be a big problem. The only reason Chernobyl was such a mess was government suppression of information, and lack of finances for an effective decontamination operation.

[Cleita]

94. I guess you've never been to New Mexico or Nevada.

The areas where nuclear testing was done in the fifties is not inhabited, and is pretty much off limits to development. Since both places are government property they aren't telling us why and they aren't using it for anything either.

[6th Borough]

97. Oft repeated underground thermonuclear reactions tend to leave a mark.

nt

[Cleita]

98. No kidding Sherlock. n/t

[6th Borough]

103. Keep digging Watson.

n/t

[Lorentz]

109. I've been to both (Nevada Test Site and White Sands Missile Range)

The Nevada Test Site is an active research facility. The radioactivity levels are non-existent, except in the very new vicinity of the old ground zeros (read: tens of feet). People work regular jobs there, are monitored regularly. I know people who have worked at the NTS for 30+ years, and their cumulative dosage above normal background radiation is ZERO.

The poster indicated that these places -- as well as "large areas" around them -- are uninhabitable. I think the millions of Las Vegas would beg to differ.

[Cleita]

111. Although the nuke tests could be seen in Las Vegas they were too far

away for any noticeable consequences. Actually one could see them in large parts of Southern California. Try again. Why does White Sands in New Mexico have signs all around it for no trespassing. It's government property and not used for much of anything is it? I've been there too. Also, something the nuclear industry doesn't like to talk about is the spike of cancer deaths much larger than the population at large to people who were exposed to those tests after that time. Most famously was a film that was made there a decade later with John Wayne and Susan Hayward who both died of cancer, but also most the the crew also contracted cancer. Coincidence? This I believe is one of the reasons the government doesn't use those lands for much of anything anymore.

[Cleita]

95. dupe

[Fovea]

100. There is a saying in Software Engineering

The problem with foolproof designs is that they often fail to anticipate the extreme ingenuity of fools.

Of the latest design ideas, I think pebble bed and salt breeders may be the best fission directions, and polywell, the best fusion.

And I still want to hear more about the latest z pinch experimentation.

[Cleita]

67. Both places are for the most part uninhabitable today. How does that compare to

other disasters like hurricanes and such. You pointed out the human error and that's important. We need technology that can withstand human error with the minimum of long term damage and nuclear technology isn't that.

[Diclotican]

80. Cleita

Cleita

I would say that it is worse han an hurricane, because you can rebuild your life after an hurricane.. After an nuclear blast, it is somewhat difficult to come back to the town you had to leave in an hurry.. You might get what you had on your back, and if you was smart, the family album with pictures.. The most of what you once had is there, almost forever.. Chernobyl is an excellent example what can happen if an nuclear accident happened.. Even today more than 20 year after it is not safe for the resident of the city to come nowhere near the place.. And if you are doing it, you can be arrested by the Ukrainian police.. And send out of the area..

The human input is something that is very important to working to safeguard.. If we can have technology who the human input are at an all time low, then maybe, just maybe we can safeguard what happened.. It is maybe little "star-trek" but I do believe that we can produce new types of electricity, and maybe other means of propulsions if we wanted it.. Now that even the US are feeling the pain of expensive petrol prices, the time have come to stick the heads together, to produce something that have the same thing that the petrol have.. But are safer and less expensive and are not a polluter.. It would take time to find it, but we humans have somehow managed to get true some pretty hard things before.. So I guess it would be the case here too...

Or maybe some is inventing the replicator all together. That should open for some interesting times ahead then..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Cleita]

88. You can rebuild your life after a Hurricane.

You can't do that after a Chernobyl. That was my point. It's unecessary to have nuclear plants when we already have proven better and safer technology.

[Zynx]

119. In no way was Chernobyl a nuclear blast. It was essentially a great big "dirty bomb".

A true nuclear explosion, like an atomic bomb, is impossible.

[Cleita]

136. So a dirty bomb is more acceptable?

Please explain to those of us who would rather not have that dirty bomb in our backyards.

[NutmegYankee]

139. Unless you live in part of the former Soviet Union....

and have a craptastic Soviet designed reactor building in your backyard, YOU DON'T! Why are you so dense to that?

[Cleita]

143. Wow. Now I'm dense.

The ad hominems are just piling up when there are no facts to report.

[NutmegYankee]

146. Well, we argue with facts. You don't seem to understand them.

Step one in an argument is knowing what the hell you are talking about.

[Cleita]

164. I have not seen you post one credible source to your contentions.n/t

[NutmegYankee]

174. Try reading them. It really does help. n/t

[Cleita]

167. The fact is you can't say that

hazardous nuclear waste isn't dangerous, that manufacturing the fuel isn't dangerous both because of radiation. You just can't say it or even say I'm wrong about other points I have brought up.

[NutmegYankee]

173. Many things are dangerous. We control them.

Radiation is controllable.

[Zynx]

156. Modern nuclear plants cannot even get hot enough for a Chernobyl to happen.

Also, if you've studied the incident, that's an event that only could have happened with severe incompetence and a total disregard for safeguards. It can be avoided fairly easily. In true Soviet fashion, the design was lousy and oversight was non-existant.

[Cleita]

161. You mean like the severe incompetence that followed in the wake

of Hurricane Katrina? Look whose running our government and the agencies who oversee these things. You say that after the election it won't be that way. Won't it? Shouldn't we just not let these dangerous technologies to happen in our backyard just in case that gross incompetence returns for another couple of terms?

[Zynx]

220. That's quite a different matter altogether.

Nuclear power plants are managed independently of political lackies. Comparing nuclear power plant management to managing a FEMA operation makes no sense at all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

254. Minor geographical point.....

Three Mile Island is near Harrisburg, PA, some 700 miles from Chicago, IL.

The nearest major city to TMI is Philadelphia, though the Harrisburg area has a population of 650,000 +

[snooper2]

251. And not to mention the hydroelectric damns that have busted..

and and and and...

I never get the ant-nuclear power crowd. I always thought it would be cool if we could find a cheap way to launch the waste we couldn't use in to the sun. ( The largest nuclear reactor in our solar system :) )

[NutmegYankee]

63. Actually, the pills are very effective. (for what they are intended for)

They don't fight general radiation, but merely radioactive iodine. The pill is loaded with regular iodine to load up your thyroid and make it so your body won't absorb the radioactive kind if it were accidentally released, which is unlikely. US reactors have a thick containment vessel that would prevent the large explosion and release of radiation from the core in the smoke of the fire as happened at Chernobyl. As for Three Mile Island, the core was severely damaged, but there was no explosion, and no fire. The small release of radioactive gas (via a pressure relief vent valve) wasn't even the average equivalent of a small X-ray. As a note - You receive roughly 15 times the radiation from the sky each year. And that Granite counter top :evilgrin:, well, don't put a Geiger-Müller counter on it.

I work around nuclear reactors and have read up extensively on Chernobyl and TMI, and frankly, I do think it's a great idea. I find that almost everyone I meet that is terrified of nuclear power is painfully ignorant about it.

[Cleita]

66. Why is it better than other sources that are available?

You know why! It's because the $$$ to build solar grids, geo-thermal plants and other methods wouldn't be going to you guys. Honestly, put the money in safer, clean and sustainable energy programs, not ones that create more waste and that have that "I'm sitting on a bomb" or "I'm polluting the environment" feeling about them. This whole oil crisis, war crisis has been artificially constructed to scare people into putting public funds into the pockets of the corporations who actually don't have the best long run solution. Take your effing plutonium and peddle it elsewhere. In my camping days I lived off the grid with solar panels on my trailer and some good batteries. When other people were without lights and TV during storms, I had plenty, thanks to those panels.

You people are afraid of solar because you know everyone can put them on their roofs, supply their needs and then even sell some back to the power company. This is what the energy corporations are afraid of. They won't be able to charge what they like on everyone's monthly electric bill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. So you aren't hooked up to electricity then right?

You've got solar panels that provide all your power. You don't have a monthly electric bill then so what's the problem. Let me guess, you do have an electric bill and probably an SUV.

David

[Cleita]

90. I do have an electric bill now because I rent.

I didn't then. Also, the electric is unreliable and we are always having power outs. So much for our fabulous nuclear plant. I don't drive an SUV because I can't afford the gas, but I don't get why you would even conflate that with this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. Just kidding about the SUV.

I think it's fairly obvious you don't drive one. We simply cannot provide the power we need right now with the "green" ideas you put forth. Nuclear is safe and when quality control measures are in place has proven so over and over again. We've got nuclear subs all over the planet. The technology is safe and effective.

David

[6th Borough]

101. Simple answer? Uranium and related metals are extremely energy dense.

The energy nuclear technology generates recoups the initial energy investment (in plant construction, mining, etc.) in a much shorter time span than could realistically be achieved from a solar array, large wind farm, large scale hydroelectric dam, etc.

[Cleita]

107. Okay you said it, initial investment.

I think if what we spend on war is diverted to this there would be plenty of money to invest and we don't need separate solar arrays. What we need is to help property owners put solar on their roofs. We need to help property owners with tracts of lands in primo locations to put wind farms on their properties that they can use for investment and income from selling the power generated to the power company. All it will take is the will of our people and government to do it instead of having a Wall Street solution shoved down our gullets by squeezing us dry on energy and then presenting the worst plan possible to solve it.

[6th Borough]

238. On this I couldn't agree more.

Living in South Florida, it would seem almost natural for every building to be paneled with photo-voltaic cells. Weather-proofed ones of course.

I was a bit sleep-deprived earlier, leaving me with only the image of massive mirrored solar array facilities in my mind as an alternative to nuclear power.

A thought that just struck me regarding wind power...do you have any idea if there is any feasibility to the idea of retrofitting cell phone towers (there are some truly massive ones down here) with small-scale wind turbines? I guess that would require R&D funds to answer. I visited a wind farm on one occasion, and was struck the most by the sheer size of the individual "windmills". You could literally live inside one comfortably...they weren't the graceful spires I had imagined of them.

I never meant to come across as opposing investment in the research which is required to develop more efficient alternative energy options...I was just being a little snarky, for which I apologize.

And yeah, I completely forgot about all of the solar power captured by methods other than vast mirror arrays. I need some damn sleep :)

[NutmegYankee]

134. Because solar and wind CANNOT provide all the power.

First off, I note that I live in new England and my point of view is heavily centered on it's situation.

I am not against alternative energy at all, and I like solar, but solar is a very small scale energy source that requires good direct sunlight to produce the power. Large plants, while low in power production, are fine in the arid SW, but impractical here in NE. The home solar units are quite expensive, but can provide half of the power needs on nice sunny summer days. In winter, the sun is far too low in the sky and the intensity is too low to produce significant power. With the loss of affordable Natural Gas and Fuel Oil, the next reasonable heat source for NE is electric heat. It takes a lot of power in the winter to keep the houses warm, on the order of $50 - $250 a month for just the heating portion of the electric bill. At the same time, the solar power is at it lowest in electricity production. Weather also plays a factor here, since during winter and spring we can go weeks without a sunny day. It has multiple years in a row, rained for 2 continuous weeks nonstop.

Wind energy is ideal along the coast, but is also unreliable. In the mountainous parts of NE, it is not practical. Wind energy also fails to produce large scale power to supply the heating needs in winter. You'd literally need them back to back along the entire NE coast to power part of Boston alone. This is not going to happen for the noise issues alone. During the nor'esters and gales that blow up off the coast the wind turbines may need to be secured to avoid damage. These same storms would remove all effective solar power at the exact time that wind power may be shut down and the coldest temps were moving in. HOW DO WE HEAT NOW!?

Geothermal is not practical in New England due to the lack of sufficient geothermal activity in the region.

In addition, we are hopefully going to move toward electric or plug in hybrid cars that will need electric power as well.

The only way to supply electric power during the winter and during the ever constant weather changes here is to either have diesel generators to quickly supply needed power on demand, traditional fossil fuel fired power plants, or Nuclear. Nuclear Power can produce for each reactor as much as 1 GigaWatt of power. Since many plants have more than one reactor, one plant can supply a substantial amount of power. We would need to cover a large chunk of NE with wind turbines and solar panels to generate that kind of power.


I understand the hype on solar and wind, but frankly, it will not be enough, no matter how much you believe so.

As for your little rant, power plants use URANIUM 235, not plutonium, and I don't work in a power plant. The US has reactors elsewhere as well.

[Cleita]

140. We have enough sun and winds in the Southwest of this country to power the

Northeast. It's been written about in science magazines. A quick google should inform you. Also there is a new technology to put wind farm type turbos in the ocean letting the tides power them. Experimental models have been modified not to harm sea life. With all those storms you guys get in the Atlantic, it should be a gold mine in energy for you.

[NutmegYankee]

147. The same science mag that stated we'd need to cover the entire state of Nevada?

I'm trying to be polite and not make snarky comments, but "God damn Son".

[Cleita]

151. "Scientific American" has been around for awhile.

I'm sure your library has copies. They don't let you read a lot on their website without subscribing or I would post links.

[NutmegYankee]

152. I read the article. I subscribe to Sci American and Discover.

You left out the "academic" issues, like nightime, dust, mountains, seasonal variations, covering with no spare space an entire US state. Then you need to address transmission, I squared R losses, etc.

It wasn't a realistic idea. You just ran with it and brought it into this discussion. Cute.

[Cleita]

159. I didn't buy into the whole thing.

I bought into the possibility but I am of the school to put solar on every roof in every city in the southwest. You wouldn't need a excess of solar arrays then.

[NutmegYankee]

166. Solar is important, but it's not THE entire answer.

Even here in New England, if the cheap $1 per watt plastic backed solar cells pan out, we could really reduce the power needs in good weather for homes. Distributed solar is a need,but it and wind will never supply all the power. Even the Sci American article mentioned only meeting 69% of our electric needs, and relied on compressed air plants (not proven practical for the scale) for the nighttime power. Another article a year ago mentioned that covering the entire state of Nevada could supply the needs of the US theoretically. Theoretically being the key word.

[Cleita]

168. Of course it isn't, but you nuke enablers are presenting that technology

as the only answer and it isn't. We don't need any new nuke plants. We just don't when there are other technologies available.

[NutmegYankee]

172. What others? Coal? Natural gas? Oil? Burning klingons?

Seriously. I just addressed this in detail. And you complain when I used the word "dense".

[Cleita]

175. Well how would you like it if I called you

arrogant. It's the same thing. Name calling isn't needed here.

[NutmegYankee]

176. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

The minimum I expect is that someone not make the same incorrect statement right after having been shown why it is incorrect.

[Cleita]

177. But, but, but my statements aren't incorrect anymore than your's are.

We are on different sides of a controversy.

[Lorentz]

179. No, that's where you're wrong, Cleita.

You've made numerous incorrect statements about nuclear energy, in order to fear-monger and cast it in a dangerous light. You're on different sides of a controversy, perhaps, but it's your (and your brethren's) misunderstanding of the technology that created the controversy in the first place.

[Cleita]

182. No I'm not fear mongering. I am presenting some well founded concerns.

You go hug your nuclear plant if you like. I will work like hell to rid our community of ours.

[Lorentz]

185. Your concerns are NOT well-founded.

That's what we've been trying to tell you! They're hysterical ravings based on the a priori assumption of "nuclear energy will kill us all".

If you hate the nuclear plant in your community so much, why are you still there?

[Cleita]

187. For the same reason I'm still in America. Just because a bunch of

fascists are leading us to perdition doesn't mean I have to leave without a fight. Other than the damn nuke plant this is a very nice place to live with nice weather, beaches and it's not too crowded.

[NutmegYankee]

190. Hi Mr. I'm above namecalling, Congrats on calling us fascists.

Well done!

[Cleita]

192. I called the people in the White House fascists. Sorry I wasn't specific but there

it is and unless you are outting yourself as one of them it isn't direct to you.

[NutmegYankee]

189. And that is just plain wrong.

Facts are facts. Thanks for making my point.

[Cleita]

191. You don't have any facts. You are just parroting what the industry wants

you to believe.

[NutmegYankee]

193. Oh my God you are out of it.

Yeah, industry wants me to know that uranium 235 fissions and not 238. Oh dear, I've been blinded by the evil industry and not textbook science. It was really evil Lord Zenu who was giving us this Uranium. Thanks. Glad I cleared that up.


Hi, I'm Earth! Have we met?

[Cleita]

195. Yep, you can't come up with any real rebuttals so now you are going to

just get mad. Can you refute even one thing namely that nuke power plants don't create radioactive nuclear waste? Just one. No you can't because it is a big problem.

[NutmegYankee]

199. I know they create waste. Duh.

You can bury it safely. Do you know anything about it? What is an Alpha particle? What is a beta particle? Gamma? Halflives?

I get mad because i'm debating someone oblivious to science. Its like arguing with a creationist that the earth is billions of years old.

The problem is you don't understand what science is:

An Example:

A peer reviewed scientific study finds that schools that teach abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates. That is science. Then people who think abstinence only is better because of faith etc attack the science as being "bad" science because it conflicts with their opinions and beliefs. It doesn't matter what you believe or feel, more girls get pregnant with abstinence only sex ed. The scientific sampling and data doesn't have a political view, it doesn't believe or not believe in God, it just is the FACT!

Whether you choose to use that fact, or buck it is your choice. But ignoring it or claiming it is bad isn't going to change it.

[Cleita]

200. So now we are getting somewhere.

Just how many safe burial sites are we going to have to have over the years to contain all of this? Better to have an industry that doesn't create this kind of waste and whose waste isn't toxic.

[NutmegYankee]

201. And solar panels and windmills don't have manufacturing waste?

Check those materials again. Nuclear waste can be safely buried or reprocessed. It is not hard.


As for the earlier argument about science, you don't understand the problem with your thinking. Take this example:

A peer reviewed scientific study finds that schools that teach abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates. That is science. Then people who think abstinence only is better because of faith etc attack the science as being "bad" science because it conflicts with their opinions and beliefs. It doesn't matter what you believe or feel, more girls get pregnant with abstinence only sex ed. The scientific sampling and data doesn't have a political view, it doesn't believe or not believe in God, it just is the FACT!

Whether you choose to use that fact, or buck it is your choice. But ignoring it or claiming it is bad isn't going to change it.

[Cleita]

202. I don't believe it's toxic, radioactive waste that has to

be buried in sealed containers so it doesn't leak out.

[NutmegYankee]

204. The sealed containers is to prevent exposure to radiation.

Thick and heavy shielding to block gamma rays, and sealed to prevent dust particles from getting into the air. Many radioactive metals can be breathed into the lungs where they could cause cancer over time. It's not like it is eating away at the container, or that it will spread easily.

[Cleita]

205. Debris from the manufacture of solar doesn't require that. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

206. No, but the mining of metals and compounds is toxic too.

Chemicals and other toxic metals are routinely used in manufacturing.

Radiation isn't this freaky otherworldly phenomenon. It is well understood, and contained. I am qualified to enter radiation areas and I have had to wear a dosimeter before. I have to take stringent tests that are thorough and hand-written (no multiple choice) and can be re-tested at any time right on the spot with the requirement to pass. How about you?

[Cleita]

207. I think I already said that.

But the debris it's not as toxic as nuclear waste and you can't in good conscience claim that. Also, once the panels are in place producing electricity, they aren't creating waste. The only waste is in the batteries used to collect it when they have to be replaced.

[NutmegYankee]

208. Okay. Good argument. Now:

We cannot make all of our power from solar or wind. Next step?

[Cleita]

215. Next step is not nukes because once we get all green energy going

then what is left in hydropower and our other kind of plants don't need to be added on to and smarter people than me in my community have figured out that once we get these alternative energies into place, we can put that old nuke plant into mothballs. All we have to do is make Duke energy, PG & E and Arnold Schwarzenegger go away. It's done one community at a time, but no one needs to build any new plants with the old dinosaur technology.

[NutmegYankee]

217. So you would burn coal?

[Cleita]

218. Ever heard of gas and thermal power? We do have those things. There is no

need for coal or even petroleum if we really got a President and Congress in there who would be willing to work with the greenies to make it happen. You really ought to visit the environment/energy forum here at DU. There's a lot of good information posted there. You could start with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=154609&mesg_id=154609

[NutmegYankee]

221. Gas, another fossil fuel we are running low on.

And Thermal, about as limited as Hydro. The rest of the power needed by the USA?

[Cleita]

224. The USA doesn't need anymore power than that if we really do this right.

We will have plenty of renewable energy for a very long time.

[NutmegYankee]

227. I see.

Lots of assumptions in that view. As for New England, I think Mass will have the first new plant. I can't wait for my electric car.

[Cleita]

230. Don't get me started on cars now. There's lots of ways to get

a fuel efficient car without needing a nuke plant to do it. Also, if you think you are going to have cheap energy from them guess again, they will make you pay for their profits. I know we do. You know why? Because they sell that energy to the highest bidder so we have to pay for it to keep some for ourselves.

[NutmegYankee]

231. It's call deregulation, and happens at all plants, solar, coal, or nuke.

n/t

[Lorentz]

196. Ah, the conspiracy theory side comes out...

It couldn't have been too far behind the "Fascist!" slam. I think we're done here.

[fascisthunter]

247. awwwwwwwwww...... too bad

live in your ignorance and sell it elsewhere.

[Cleita]

157. An article about the history of my very own nuke plant aptly named "El Diablo".

I'm sure if it were so benign instead of naming it after the canyon they built it in they would have called it, "Fairy Godmother".

http://www.santamariasun.com/index.php?p=showarticle&id=2157

Teasing details from the Devil
Riding the wave of nuclear renaissance, PG&E is building onsite storage tanks to hold toxic waste despite litigation and protests from local activists
BY PATRICK M. KLEMZ

Date: 12/14/2006

Twelve years before the accident at Three Mile Island, world-renowned nature photographer Ansel Adams penned a chilling statement."Diablo Canyon was prophetically named," Adams wrote in the Feb. 1967 edition of the Sierra Club Bulletin. "It grew as a contentious issue to sow doubt and dissension."

The immortality of his words belied the simple context of their use at the time Adams was referring to a disagreement within the Sierra Club over whether to endorse the plant's current location and save the Nipomo Dunes from utility development.

Even among environmentalists of the era, atomic energy hardly proved a robust bone of contention. By the time the first Diablo Canyon reactor became operational in 1984, that perspective had completely eroded.

"Trust seems to be what shifted," explained historian John Wills, author of "Conservation Fallout." "In the 1970s, there was a realization, for the first time, of nuclear projects moving into people's backyards." more...

Now this article is not as critical of this plant as many of us who live under it with sirens on the hills behind us and radiation pills in our medicine cabinets. However, for those of you who entertain the notion that this is a good thing when there is better technology out there, really think about it.

[NutmegYankee]

162. I also live within the 10 mile zone of a Nuke plant. n/t

[Cleita]

165. And have you done any research about that plant and the issues it raises

or are you content to sit in your home with your pills in the medicine cabinet and alarms on the hill that you don't need with any other energy source?

[NutmegYankee]

171. I aware of it. And quite content.

Technically, I live within 10 miles of over a dozen nuclear reactors. I live near a submarine base. Quite content.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Again what pills are you talking about.

I've grown up around nuclear reactors and research centers my whole life. I've never heard of radiation pills, I've never heard an alarm, I've always had really cheap power. The French get 80% of their power from nuclear sources, how many accidents have they had? How many people a year die in France because of the problems you list? You need to get a grip.

David

[Lorentz]

84. Potassium iodide pills

AAs another poster indicated, they're used to saturate the thyroid gland with stable iodine so that the radioactive type doesn't get absorbed. Since the isotope in question (I-131) has a half-life of only about 8 days, the pills are quite effective in preventing their intake, if taken at the right time.

I've heard that some people near power plants get them, others not. You can buy them for yourself at any supplement store (GNC).

That being said, I'm with you 100% on the nature of the danger (i.e. virtually non-existent).

[Cleita]

91. Your words

"The pills are quite effective in preventing their intake, if taken at the right time."

So if you can't take them at the right time, I guess you are toast.

How ridiculous is it to allow this technology that requires you keep pills on hand just in case when there is other technology that doesn't require it. I mean just what crazy universe are all you guys living in?

[Endangered Specie]

123. Well, its an overblown safety measure, and two...

the coal and oil plants are gonna make us *all* need to wear gas masks all day sooner or later.

[Cleita]

129. Sure if we keep building them instead of going to safer and less polluting

technology. On the other hand do we really need all that much electricity in our daily lives? I think there is a lot we can do to wean us off excess use of electricity. I reduced my need for air conditioning by planting trees around my house and all that green stuff helps counter pollution. If I weren't a renter I could do a lot more with a properly vented house that takes advantage of the seasons and weather phenomena.

[Endangered Specie]

142. That would help the problem... but not get rid of it...

A good deal (probably the majority) of electricity is not residential use, but industry use.

[Cleita]

148. Numbers have been crunched that support the fact that

doing this for residential properties and small business would take the pressure off of our existing power plants that would be plenty for industrial needs. There would be no need to contruct any new nuke plants or other power plants.

[Pavulon]

43. I lived near one (4 mi) for 10 years

no problems. Cheap power as well.

[Cleita]

93. Well our power isn't cheap and it keeps going up.

Good that you have had no problems because there is no margin for error. One "problem" is all you get.

[Zynx]

116. The risks are so small as to be near 0.

[Cleita]

Nothing is 0.

That very small risk that you claim if even so is an error than can happen only once. There is no putting that nuclear toothpaste back into the tube. It's not worth it when safer and better technology is available. Sure it won't deliver the Wall Street profits nuclear power will, but ho hum.

[Zynx]

154. Some risks are so small that concerning yourself with them is irrational.

The threat posed by nuclear power plants is much less significant than many ongoing threats we deal with routinely.

[Cleita]

163. What don't you get about the difference in risk factors when one

can be remedied and another can't. If I drop a match in the gas tank of my car it's going to blow up and I will never get my car back. It only takes once no matter how low the risk is.

[Zynx]

223. If the risk is so remote it is essentially non-existant.

This is akin to me saying, "Well, something bad might happen if I open my door today so I won't do it." It's just about that silly. How many nuclear accidents has France had? How many in Spain? How many in Germany? You seem to have no real concept of just how careful we are. The risks are well known and the payoff is worth the risk in this time of rising energy costs.

By the way, I'm very accustomed to risk analysis having studied economics and public policy for my academic life. Nuclear power is essentially risk free. I'd gladly have a plant essentially next to my house.

[SCUBARACK]

45. Well at least then you could use geothermal.

[Cleita]

48. Yes, we could but we need the will of our government to do this.

Unfortunately, the companies that stand to benefit from building nuclear power plants are the ones who probably will get the money to do so and not the greener energy providers. That's really the problem, not how but who is going to get the biggest slice of the pie.

[Zynx]

115. Coal plant emissions have caused far more damage than nukes.

[Cleita]

131. And I'm not for them. That's so nineteenth century and today we have

twenty first century technology that we can put to work if we can get our government on board to make it happen.

[Zynx]

I'm for solar and wind as well, but as of now nuclear is the most economical.

[ElboRuum]

15. I have always been skeptical of the argument...

...no nukes at any cost. I feel like Three Mile Island/Chernobyl is still the guiding principle and sole understanding of nuclear power. Of course, no one believes that air travel is statistically safer than travel by automobile either.

[Robbien]

16. The argument is not no nukes, but why only nukes and no clean alternatives

like air, wind or ocean currents? If one must be subsidized, they all should be.

Why must we subsidize the building of nukes? If it is such a great profitable energy alternative, why must we be the ones asked to pay for something they will charge us an arm and leg to use? With all profits generated of course going to Chamber of Commerce types.

[Endangered Specie]

50. The initial cost to built one is extremly high...

the ones built have long since paid for themselves, but its hard to get that kind of investment money, esp in today's economy.

I agree that all should be used and subsidized.

[Zynx]

118. People always base their impressions on the catastrophic headlines.

For example, we make laws in response to the serial killers and child murderers when the most serious form of crime is run-of-the-mill ordinary street crime.

[Endangered Specie]

121. and thats why people think its unsafe to fly when they see a plane crash

and kill 200 people, whereas that may only happen once a month, but in that same month 2,000 people die in car crashes, just one, two, or maybe three at a time.

[Zynx]

124. Exactly. No one bothers to look into the stats.

[Cleita]

132. Believe me this is way beyond plane crashes it's about a dangerous

technology that should be banned worldwide.

[Zynx]

153. Plane crashes have killed more people than nuclear power plants. Cars way more.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. General Electric---owner of NBC/MSNBC makes billions from nuclear reactors

And John McCain is part of a growing movement within the body of retired military men who is all for nuclear energy, supposedly as a way to end the need for wars for oil in the middle east but possibly also as a way to make federal money for their defense industry companies, since the feds typically pour billions into these projects.

[ohio2007]

33. you must be pro global warming . nt

[zalinda]

36. Obama is also on the nuke bandwagon n/t

[FarCenter]

30. They should all be built according to 2 or 3 designs

US plants were typically custom ordered by each power company, and they were custom designed and built by the manufacturers. This makes regulatiom more complex, designs more likely to have flaws, simulations and training more likeky to be incomplete or incorrect, and it lessens the opportunity for plant operators to learn from each others experience.

Other countries limit the number of approved reactor designs and so should we.

[Endangered Specie]

51. Actually, that is EXACTLY whats happening...

The AP1000 and AREVA's EPR are the 'one design, many reactors' type.

[FarCenter]

82. That's good, but having only 2 or 3 operating organizations would be good too

Hopefully they are going further than just type similarities.

A friend who worked at Besse-Davis said that it was of the same type as Three Mile Island.

The operators there encountered the beginning of the same chain of events as at TMI, but took the right action to prevent an incident.

[Endangered Specie]

120. Well, let me explain it a little better...

when he says they are similar to TMI, he means they are both 2-loop P.W.R. (pressurized water reactors). Half the nations reactors are PWR, its just every PWR has different sizes, shapes, and whatnot parts that make it up.

This is sorta like saying two sports cars are the same because they both have "x" liter 6-cyl engines", one could be alot safer than the other.

Heres an anecdote: TMI #2 is the one that failed, TMI #1 is still working to this day with no problems.

Also the EPR and AP1000 use "passive" "fail safe" safety systems... passive means its automatic, no user intervention required, kinda like a tea kettle will always make noise when the water boils is not passive because you still have to remove it off the stove, hence human intervention required. Fail safe is a safety system that is 'reversed' so that it requires power or human intervention to *keep the safety off*.

Lets say you want a way to dump coolant into a soon-to-overheat reactor, a passive fail safe system would be one that stores the coolant 30' up, and is held back by a valve that requires power to keep is *closed*, and, say, power to this valve passes through a fuse of some kind that will break when exposed to a certain high temperature. Hi temp, cuts the power, which opens the valve and the water falls due to gravity.

[NutmegYankee]

64. I believe there are two competing designs.

Both have "fail safe" designs.

[bertman]

38. UP UNTIL RECENTLY I TOO WAS MAJORLY ANTI -NUCLEAR ENERGY

then I heard Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, when he spoke at the National Green Building Conference in New Orleans. He presented a convincing argument for using nuclear energy. Here are some of his points, plus a few I've thrown in: (Please pardon if I am repeating some already stated)

1. The technology is proven and except for two major accidents (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) the industry's safety record is very good. He says there were no fatalities as a result of TMI, but I have read other claims; nonetheless, there was no apocalyptic damage at TMI like at Chernobyl.
2. Long-term studies of nuke plant workers in the U.S. and France have shown that it is a safer work environment than most construction sites.
3. We do have to be hyperaware of security against terrorist threats, but that is not an insurmountable obstacle.
4. Nuclear fuel is reusable and the Japanese are having success with various methods of reusing it for power production and other uses (medical, for example).
5. As we reuse/recycle the spent fuel from our current inefficient (as relates to fuel-to-waste ratio) nuclear fuel we minimize the need for storage of waste.
6. We have to be creative about the use of the water that is used to cool the reactors by recycling it for industrial or perhaps local home heating, or some other purpose. This is another of those brain challenges that we have up until now given little thought to.
7. Other countries are developing safer, smaller reactors such as pebble bed reactors that were developed by Germany then shipped to South Africa when the German populace decided to outlaw nuke plants. According to Moore, these pebble bed reactors are very clean and can be used in a "closed loop" system to manufacture gas from coal byproducts with almost no pollutants. Current techology for converting coal to gas is extremely hazardous because of heavy pollution due to its waste products. This combination would allow us to use the abundance of coal in a non-polluting way to produce gas while simultaneously producing electricity.
8. Our energy demands are such that solar and wind and the other technologies like geothermal are going to take too long to bring on line for baseline energy production on a massive scale.
9. Current solar photovoltaic technology produces "clean" energy, but the production of the cells is anything but "clean". Of course, people are working on solving this.
10. We cannot rely soley on nukes but must also begin a massive plan to develop these other energy technologies as supplemental and replacement options.

Essentially, he is saying that our most important planet-wide goal of eliminating the production of greenhouse gases cannot be achieved in time to be effective in combating global warming unless we are willing to use the non-carbon emitting energy we can get from nukes.

Since I'm not a scientist I can't evaluate all of Moore's claims, but I find his arguments compelling and worth consideration, especially given the accelerated pace at which our polar ice caps are melting.

My apologies to Patrick Moore if my explanations are overly simplistic or not totally accurate.

[jpak]

83. Patrick Moore is a contrarian nnutcase who believes that global warming is a "good thing"

and that the way to protect old growth forests is to log them.

what a pile...

[Carnea]

39. The more things change.....

[KamaAina]

49. There are new-generation nukes out there that might be worth looking at

before we go ahead and build thirteen more old-style plants with the same old issues surrounding waste disposal, proliferation (a particular problem with breeders, which create plutonium), etc.

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

The pebble bed reactor (PBR) is a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled nuclear reactor. It is a type of Very high temperature reactor (VHTR) (formally known as the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR)), one of the six classes of nuclear reactors in the Generation IV initiative. Like other VHTR designs, the PBR uses TRISO fuel particles, which allows for high outlet temperatures and passive safety.

The base of the PBR's unique design is the spherical fuel elements called "pebbles". These tennis ball-sized pebbles are made of pyrolytic graphite (which acts as the moderator), and they contain thousands of micro fuel particles called TRISO particles. These TRISO fuel particles consist of a fissile material (such as 235U) surrounded by a coated ceramic layer of SiC for structural integrity. In the PBR, 360,000 pebbles are placed together to create a reactor, and is cooled by an inert or semi-inert gas such as helium, nitrogen or carbon dioxide.

This type of reactor is also unique because its passive safety removes the need for redundant, active safety systems. Because the reactor is designed to handle high temperatures, it can cool by natural circulation and still remain intact in accident scenarios, which may raise the temperature of the reactor to 1600 oC. Also because of its design, its high temperatures allow higher thermal efficiencies than possible in traditional nuclear power plants (up to 50%).

[Endangered Specie]

52. The plants will likely be AP1000 or EPR... both of which are

pressurized light water reactors... the nuclear power people want these because PWR is a proven technology. Pebble bets are nice, but the industry is still on gen III, and both those designs I mentioned are passive safety.

[crikkett]

61. 'states' approval to hike rates to pay for construction if those loans are to be affordable'

No shit! We will pay more to get poisoned by 'cheap' nuclear energy???

[PittPoliSci]

73. good.

anything but oil.

[Jack_DeLeon]

75. This is good news...

We need to get off of fossil fuels, and nuclear power is a good interim step until we are able to successfully build a fusion power plant.

[girl gone mad]

76. Shame.

In an time when France is having to shut down reactors due to global warming, you'd think we'd be a lot smarter.

[Zynx]

158. Link? I've heard nothing about that.

[girl gone mad]

209. ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0728-06.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

[NutmegYankee]

212. That could happen to any power plant, nuke or non-nuke.

It is part of the thermal process with using steam to turn turbines. It can be solved with cooling towers or ocean water.

[girl gone mad]

236. So let's just flush ever increasing amounts...

of cash down the nuclear toilet rather than promote alternative energy and conservation.

:eyes:

[NutmegYankee]

240. What's with the roll eyes

I pointed out a fact that any thermal cycle plant faces the same problem. Whether coal, oil, Geothermal, Nuclear, or natural gas, all use steam to turn turbines to make the power and need to dump the excess heat to condense the steam back to water.

I love how you can sit there with the roll eye icon thinking how great your ideas are. Ignorance really is bliss. Reality sucks. Get used to it.

[Zynx]

219. I'm no engineer, but I bet they can figure out ways to deal with higher river temperatures.

[NutmegYankee]

233. Hell, bigger heat exchangers.

The larger size would offset the decreased efficiency due to warmer river temps.

[girl gone mad]

235. Not likely.

The best hope they have is to put plants near the ocean and screw with marine life there instead.

[NutmegYankee]

239. Cooling towers or bigger heat exchangers.

You loose some efficiency with a warmer thermal sink, but it can be solved.

[jpak]

105. Thank you Dick Cheney

Unfortunately, there are only enough subsidies in the GOP 2005 Energy Bill for 6 of those new plants.

Half of them won't be built.

[Cleita]

113. Just some information about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and why

they were able to rebuild.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080511095449AA3p7Re

[Zynx]

117. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have approximately as much to do with nuclear plants

as my left foot.

[Cleita]

125. I know but someone brought it up as an example of life goes on after a bombing.

I know it's entirely different from a meltdown where life won't go on for generations.

[Lorentz]

126. Please explain why life won't go on after a meltdown.

I would like to hear the scientific explanation.

[Cleita]

127. I will leave scientific explanations to the scientists, however, I think I already

mentioned Chernobyl with some collaboration from another poster from Norway, which actually had a radioactive cloud that hovered over his and other Scandinavian countries for sometimes after. Do we really need these risks when safer non-radioactive technology is available?. There is no need to take risks unless you want the thrill of it. I mean would you cross a river on a tightrope when a well engineered stone bridge is available? Wall Street won't make the profits from solar like the nukes but it's time this country wasn't run for the benefit of Wall Street.

[Codeine]

180. Chernobyl melted down

because it was a completely idiotic design. Modern designs do not operate that way.

[Cleita]

226. Human error. This is my point.

We can't allow Wall Street to dictate what technology we can have especially if that technology is too hot to handle.

[NutmegYankee]

232. You keep making that Wall Street claim, explain it.

Why profits from Nuclear Power but not Solar plants?

[Cleita]

138. Also, does anyone have any idea how dangerous it is for the workers who

have to make the fuel for these reactors? I grew up in a copper mine that also mined uranium. Some of the ore refining process involved the use of arsenic. The arsenic seeped into the soil. Cats and dogs ran around with fur and skin dropping off their legs because they didn't have boots to wear. Eventually, the living area had to be abandoned and moved fifteen miles away because the arsenic pollution got so bad. No one asked the company to stop this because the almighty $$$ reined supreme. Also the uranium has to be processed into plutonium a very dangerous process if things don't go right. We already have free sunshine. What's the problem? Do we need to do this the other way?

[Lorentz]

141. Why is processing uranium into plutonium "dangerous if not done right"?

What does that mean? How do you not do it right? Does it blow up? Does it melt down? Does it release horrible amounts of radiation?

For what it's worth, building solar panels is dangerous if not done "right", too...

Again, your arguments are based on hearsay and unfounded inference, about a topic you don't understand but have decided to fear based on personal beliefs -- again, not unlike those who oppose stem cell research.

[frickaline]

145. Are you seriously asking

for a lay person to detail unforeseen problems overlooked by the plant designers? That seems to be asking a bit much.

I think you might better allay fears by describing how you believe these plants can guarantee safety of those living in close proximity.

Just a suggestion.

[Lorentz]

150. The poster is making things up.

I've never heard of plutonium breeding not being done "right," let alone being "dangerous". He/she just added it in to make nuclear technology seem much more dangerous than the alternatives.

In that spirit, I could say that building solar panels is "dangerous if not done right." In fact, building *ANYTHING* is dangerous if not done right. Since when has that been an argument against the technology?

Basically, the poster is fear-mongering to bolster this "clean energy" argument.

[frickaline]

155. Ok so lets take this example

In this plant near the poster, a group of water pumps fail. Discuss. :)

[NutmegYankee]

210. The backup pumps come online.

If they don't, for the PWR reactor type, sensors for the pumps and high temp alarms will sound and shutdown the reactor. For a BWR, the loss of water will slow the reaction since the water acts as a moderator to keep the fission going and the alarms will also shut down the reactor. For the new designed reactors, the water can gravity feed and flow if the pumps fail.

[frickaline]

211. Now please explain

why this didn't happen at 3 Mile Island and what is different today that would keep that scenario from happening again. And perhaps people will feel safer as a result.

[NutmegYankee]

214. Sure, this is from memory:

The primary pumps shut down.

The over pressure relief valve stuck open after venting off the excess pressure from the system heating up after the primary pumps failed. The switch to show that the valve had shut was not installed. All other reactors had one installed after this incident. The operators believed the valve was shut.

The valve to supply the secondary pump water had been shut due to human error. Solution is interlocks and switches for feedback. The valve was later opened, but steam had plugged the piping.

The heat caused steam voids to form, causing the water to rise in the pressurizer and make the operators think they were over-filling the reactor. Faulty designed switches made them think there was plenty of water. They shut down the emergency cooling pumps, not realizing they were venting steam and loosing water from the reactor. This continued for over an hour until the next watch realized what had happened and shut down a cutoff valve to the over pressure relief valve that was stuck open.

The problems were in design, and training. The relief valve prevented the massive steam explosion of Chernobyl, and operators could have shut down the reactor with control rods if they had needed to. The reactor rods were extremely damaged because of the exposure of over half of the rods to no cooling water for hours. It wasn't the pump failure that caused the accident, but the inadequate feedback systems and failure to recognize that they were loosing water from the relief valve that caused the incident. New designs use emergency gravity feed designs for emergency cooling systems and use far more extensive switches and feedback systems to prevent another incident. An example is to have two independent switches, on different circuits feed back the position. If one fails, the other still reads and the computer will sound a warning due to the conflict to have the operators investigate and take corrective action. If both failed, independent sensors for temp and pressure will also protect that subsystem.

The later release of gases was done after the incident as they secured the damage to the reactor systems.

A few simple level gages were all that was required to prevent the incident. Unlike in the 70s, where each company designed a custom reactor for the plants, the new proposed reactors will be of two types, with many more safety and feedback systems built in. The standardization will improve the designs and make the use far safer.

[frickaline]

222. fascinating post

I work in software engineering, mainly testing code. My experience in testing out human logic designs is that designers tend to believe they have a perfect design. Problem is, there are almost always bugs to find, even in a design that has been around for years. I imagine it is from this that most of the fears surrounding this technology stem.

I would believe that over time, given that the reactor design seems to be standard, this type of technology would become safer and safer as small improvements are added to the standard design. It does however seem likely that not all the problems with the design work have necessarily been flushed out. In fact I'd argue that this perfect scenario is something that just cannot be attained. There will always be scenarios that no one has thought of. However, it is not whether or not an issue can occur that is of concern but rather the scope of the problem should it occur.

The training level of the staff is a variable to me, and can not really be counted on in all cases. It is in the systems we must put our trust. My basic human fear tells me that there will always be a series of hardware failures that could lead to something unforeseen and potentially devastating. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, reactors don't operate at a temperature that would allow a Chernobyl type incident to occur. From your post, it seems as if we have learned the value of redundancy and safeties for at least some of those unpredictable hardware failure cases.

In the end, I assume there can never be a guarantee that a 3 mile island scenario cannot happen again. But in adding safety systems we make the reality of such an event a near statistical impossibility. And so, in order for this doomsday scenario to occur, the regular systems, the back up systems, the safety systems all have to fail in the perfect storm with an untrained staff. And I'm assuming the argument would be that although this would be devastating, people live in tornado alley in a trainer park without giving that much higher risk a second glance. Perhaps it is callous to write of this risk in this manor, but frankly, we all do this every day. We assess the risk associated with certain actions and make our decisions accordingly.

[Cleita]

170. Not everything is as dangerous as this.

There is a danger that an airplane could crash into my house killing me, but my neighbors most likely would not be hurt. If this plant is blown up everyone will go. We are sitting on a large earthquake fault and it's a very real possibility that none of the pro-nukies like to talk about.

[Lorentz]

184. The plant will not "blow up", and it will not kill everyone.

Power plants don't explode in mushroom clouds. The enrichment levels of uranium used in the plants will never allow for a runaway chain reaction like in a bomb. It's physically impossible. And before you point out that I already made the comparison: that was in terms of potential radiological contaminants like fission products and other fallout, not in terms of explosive potential.

You keep pushing the matra that nuclear accidents will "kill everyone," and we'll keep shooting down your opinion. As others have pointed out, you seem to have a problem listening to people who try to reason with you. I really don't think you're interested in learning here.

[Cleita]

186. I realize that probably most people with the means will be able to evacuate.

The point is that they won't be able to return to rebuild unlike the victims of natural disasters unless they ignore the hazards of radiation poisoning.

[frickaline]

213. Here's a question for you

Are you able to purchase home insurance coverage in the event of the scenario you are describing in the above post?

[Cleita]

216. No. I can't even get earthquake insurance nor fire insurance if it's because of a brush fire. .

Other kinds of fire are covered. The companies have their bets covered. I do have flood though in case a tidal wave comes far enough up my hill to flood me. LOL!

[frickaline]

225. This is something that the government should address imo (nt)

[NutmegYankee]

188. Why is a breeder reactor operation so dangerous?

Power plants use Uranium, but plutonium is made for nuclear weapons. It's a rather simple process. A Uranium 235 fission reaction releases 3 neutrons. One neutron is absorbed by a Uranium 238 atom, making it Uranium 239. It releases a beta radiation particle (electron) from the decay of a Neutron into a proton and an electron. The extra proton makes the atom into Neptunium 239. Neptunium will release another beta particle to form Plutonium 239.

Uranium is atomic number (number of Protons) 92. Neptunium is 93. Plutonium is 94.

Where is the danger again?

[Cleita]

149. Jeez, did you ever see the movie "Silkwood"? n/t

[NutmegYankee]

181. two comments:

One, the arsenic was a by product of the Copper mining, not the uranium.

Two, Uranium does not have to be processed into plutonium for nuclear power. The uranium is refined to increase the concentration of fissionable U235 from the vast quantity of non-fissionable U238.

[Cleita]

183. So why are we processing plutonium then?

My point about the arsenic was that this is how destructive the extraction industries are no matter what they are processing.

[NutmegYankee]

194. Plutonium is primarily for Nuclear weapons. n/t

[Cleita]

197. But we have nuclear non-proliferation treaties, don't we?

Oh I forgot our fascist government (not you) doesn't pay any attention to no stinkin' treaties.

[NutmegYankee]

203. AFAIK, we don't make much anymore.

France does, but uses special reactor designs that can use Plutonium. We don't use it in commercial reactor because of theft fears.

[NJmaverick]

198. As much as I am not a big fan, I feel our energy independence is critical to our nation's well being

That I have to consider this a good thing. This would help reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and that's a good thing. Plus, zero carbon emissions.

[girl gone mad]

237. Nuclear plants are not carbon neutral..

because it takes a huge amount of energy just to build them.

Virtually every one we've ever built has been a boondoggle money pit.

[BlueCollar]

241. About damn time....

From a practical point of view we should have been doing this years ago.

[Name removed]

246. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

253. Great news

The French are *way* ahead of us on nuclear power.